Attackers Target New Zero-day Vulnerability in Word

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Au79, Feb 17, 2007.

  1. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Au79, Feb 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$:

    > CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >
    > Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again, with
    > the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
    > vulnerability ...
    >
    ><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >


    If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Feb 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >
    >> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>
    >> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again, with
    >> the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
    >> vulnerability ...
    >>
    >><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>

    >
    > If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.


    People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground up
    with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is required
    for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and effectively.

    Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
    programmers ever.

    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Feb 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >>
    >>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again, with
    >>> the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
    >>> vulnerability ...
    >>>
    >>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>>

    >> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.

    >
    > People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground up
    > with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is required
    > for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and effectively.


    So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and you have nothing to fear? If you believe
    that you are even dumber then I thought.

    No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and in addition too much security can
    CAUSE people to do dumb things because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on "Offset
    Hypothesis" for more info.

    > Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
    > programmers ever.


    Based on what?
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Feb 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>
    >>> Au79 <> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >>>
    >>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>>>
    >>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
    >>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
    >>>> vulnerability ...
    >>>>
    >>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>>>
    >>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.

    >>
    >> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground up
    >> with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is required
    >> for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
    >> effectively.

    >
    > So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and you
    > have nothing to fear?


    Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any maladies. I
    don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because my Linux
    computer does not need them.

    > If you believe that you are even dumber then I
    > thought.
    >


    I believe that because it is a fact.

    > No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and in
    > addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things because they
    > believe the system will protect them. Do a search on "Offset Hypothesis"
    > for more info.


    Here's the dumb thing:

    "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other drivers to
    acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these safety devices
    do not have a significant effect on collisions or injuries [except that
    they only increase your chance of survival in the event of a collision],
    suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for speedier trips.â€

    What nonsense.

    >
    >> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
    >> programmers ever.

    >
    > Based on what?


    Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool operating
    system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been the most
    bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.

    Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a pathetically
    compromiseable system.

    Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X, will
    continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
    industry, academia, and the consumer.

    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Feb 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$:
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Au79 <> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >>>>
    >>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
    >>>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
    >>>>> vulnerability ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>>>>
    >>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
    >>>> get.
    >>>
    >>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground
    >>> up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is
    >>> required for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
    >>> effectively.

    >>
    >> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
    >> you have nothing to fear?

    >
    > Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
    > maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
    > my Linux computer does not need them.
    >
    >> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
    >> thought.
    >>

    >
    > I believe that because it is a fact.


    Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should
    be able to open without any problems.

    >> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
    >> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
    >> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
    >> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.

    >
    > Here's the dumb thing:
    >
    > "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
    > drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
    > safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
    > injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
    > event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
    > speedier trips.â€
    >
    > What nonsense.


    It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher proportion of winter accidents
    becuase the drives believe their vehicle is safer in these types of conditions (it's not).

    >>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
    >>> programmers ever.

    >>
    >> Based on what?

    >
    > Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
    > operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
    > the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.


    I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.

    > Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
    > pathetically compromiseable system.


    Even I will concede Vista is a pig.

    > Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
    > will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
    > industry, academia, and the consumer.


    You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting the same for *nix
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Feb 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>
    >>> Au79 <> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$:
    >>>
    >>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Au79 <> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
    >>>>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
    >>>>>> vulnerability ...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
    >>>>> get.
    >>>>
    >>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground
    >>>> up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is
    >>>> required for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
    >>>> effectively.
    >>>
    >>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
    >>> you have nothing to fear?

    >>
    >> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
    >> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
    >> my Linux computer does not need them.
    >>
    >>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
    >>> thought.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I believe that because it is a fact.

    >
    > Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
    > attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any problems.
    >


    Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you can
    just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about and if
    it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not be).


    >>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
    >>> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
    >>> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
    >>> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.

    >>
    >> Here's the dumb thing:
    >>
    >> "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
    >> drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
    >> safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
    >> injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
    >> event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
    >> speedier trips.â€
    >>
    >> What nonsense.

    >
    > It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher
    > proportion of winter accidents becuase the drives believe their vehicle is
    > safer in these types of conditions (it's not).
    >


    Obviously, SUV's have a higher center of gravity that undermines whatever
    safety features they are built with. For a period of time, there seemed to
    be a Ford fatality just about every week.

    But your logic does not translate well for other vehicles such as sedans,
    minivans, etc. Automobile Technology has reduced the number of fatalities
    attributed to design issues, to be sure, however I would be hard pressed to
    believe that this same technology may be the indirect (influential) cause
    of the accidents.

    So, even if this dumb theory could be taken at face value, there is
    absolutely no correlation to our discussion on operating systems. Linux
    provides a safer and sane computer environment for the consumer, which
    means that users migrating away from windos will not "suffer" the atrocious
    maladies they are accustomed; and certainly it is absurd to infer that a
    safer computing environment means a greater risk.

    >>>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
    >>>> programmers ever.
    >>>
    >>> Based on what?

    >>
    >> Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
    >> operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
    >> the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.

    >
    > I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.
    >


    Microsoft WANTS a cool OS. That's why they spent millions aping OS X, of
    course, over a fragile and vulnerable platform.


    >> Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
    >> pathetically compromiseable system.

    >
    > Even I will concede Vista is a pig.
    >
    >> Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
    >> will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
    >> industry, academia, and the consumer.

    >
    > You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting the
    > same for *nix


    You go right ahead and get a nice cup of coffee and wait.

    And wait...

    .... and wait.


    ....and...

    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Feb 22, 2007
    #7
  8. On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:10:21 -0800, Au79 wrote:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$:
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Au79 <> wrote in
    >>>> news:bkRCh.161442$:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Au79 <> wrote in
    >>>>>> news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted
    >>>>>>> again, with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting
    >>>>>>> a new vulnerability ...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
    >>>>>> get.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the
    >>>>> ground up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security
    >>>>> that is required for safe computing- something that Linux does
    >>>>> brilliantly and effectively.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
    >>>> you have nothing to fear?
    >>>
    >>> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
    >>> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
    >>> my Linux computer does not need them.
    >>>
    >>>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I thought.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> I believe that because it is a fact.

    >>
    >> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
    >> attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any
    >> problems.
    >>
    >>

    > Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you
    > can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about
    > and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not
    > be).


    Even *if* it did any damage, it's more than likely it will *only* affect
    your user. The rest of the system will carry on regardless, as it wouldn't
    have any permissions to change anything. If the attachment required you to
    'sudo' it before it opened, then you just delete it.

    <snip BS>

    AFAIC he's just taking out of his arse, it's been explained to him
    before, but he just prefers not to know (so I binned him, I know when you
    can't educate a brick). 90% of the internet runs on linux, with no spyware
    or anti-virus problems. I've run linux distros for 10 years, & never
    bothered about spyware or anti-virus because i don't need to. However I do
    run a rootkit checker regularly.


    --
    Contrary to popular belief, the M$ trolls & shills
    *can* tell the difference between their arse
    & their elbow.
    They can't talk out of their elbow.
     
    William Poaster, Feb 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:iuoDh.181301$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$:
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Au79 <> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Au79 <> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
    >>>>>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
    >>>>>>> vulnerability ...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
    >>>>>> get.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground
    >>>>> up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is
    >>>>> required for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
    >>>>> effectively.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
    >>>> you have nothing to fear?
    >>>
    >>> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
    >>> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
    >>> my Linux computer does not need them.
    >>>
    >>>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
    >>>> thought.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I believe that because it is a fact.

    >>
    >> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
    >> attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any problems.
    >>

    >
    > Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you can
    > just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about and if
    > it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not be).


    It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to and while reply in
    kind with a nice attachment. Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.

    >>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
    >>>> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
    >>>> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
    >>>> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>
    >>> Here's the dumb thing:
    >>>
    >>> "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
    >>> drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
    >>> safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
    >>> injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
    >>> event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
    >>> speedier trips.â€
    >>>
    >>> What nonsense.

    >>
    >> It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher
    >> proportion of winter accidents becuase the drives believe their vehicle is
    >> safer in these types of conditions (it's not).
    >>

    >
    > Obviously, SUV's have a higher center of gravity that undermines whatever
    > safety features they are built with. For a period of time, there seemed to
    > be a Ford fatality just about every week.
    >
    > But your logic does not translate well for other vehicles such as sedans,
    > minivans, etc. Automobile Technology has reduced the number of fatalities
    > attributed to design issues, to be sure, however I would be hard pressed to
    > believe that this same technology may be the indirect (influential) cause
    > of the accidents.


    Here is another article:

    http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html

    This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved safety measure (aka security) are often
    thwarted by the user feeling more confident and therefore being less cautious.

    > So, even if this dumb theory could be taken at face value, there is
    > absolutely no correlation to our discussion on operating systems. Linux
    > provides a safer and sane computer environment for the consumer, which
    > means that users migrating away from windos will not "suffer" the atrocious
    > maladies they are accustomed; and certainly it is absurd to infer that a
    > safer computing environment means a greater risk.


    The correlation is that if a user has a 'safer' OS or browser they believe they don't have to do the things
    that less 'safe' OS's or browsers might require such as applying patches or practicing safe surfing.

    >>>>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
    >>>>> programmers ever.
    >>>>
    >>>> Based on what?
    >>>
    >>> Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
    >>> operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
    >>> the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.

    >>
    >> I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.
    >>

    > Microsoft WANTS a cool OS. That's why they spent millions aping OS X, of
    > course, over a fragile and vulnerable platform.


    How do you know what Microsoft wants?

    >>> Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
    >>> pathetically compromiseable system.

    >>
    >> Even I will concede Vista is a pig.
    >>
    >>> Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
    >>> will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
    >>> industry, academia, and the consumer.

    >>
    >> You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting the
    >> same for *nix

    >
    > You go right ahead and get a nice cup of coffee and wait.
    >
    > And wait...
    >
    > ... and wait.
    >
    >
    > ...and...


    So it's only going to take me the time to finish my coffee before a new *nix bug is found? That's even
    quicker than I imagined. You have to admit there are bugs in *nix or you really are beyond hope.

    Here is some fun reading for you:

    http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/36f95df0e727a930/112639a4
    9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horrendous&rnum=1#112639a49b61c770

    Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:

    http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838

    Especially sections 7 and 8
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Feb 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:iuoDh.181301$:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>
    >>> Au79 <> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$:
    >>>
    >>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Au79 <> wrote in
    >>>>> news:bkRCh.161442$:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Au79 <> wrote in
    >>>>>>> news:V9uBh.48373$:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted
    >>>>>>>> again, with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting
    >>>>>>>> a new vulnerability ...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
    >>>>>>> get.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the
    >>>>>> ground up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security
    >>>>>> that is required for safe computing- something that Linux does
    >>>>>> brilliantly and effectively.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
    >>>>> you have nothing to fear?
    >>>>
    >>>> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
    >>>> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
    >>>> my Linux computer does not need them.
    >>>>
    >>>>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
    >>>>> thought.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I believe that because it is a fact.
    >>>
    >>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
    >>> attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any
    >>> problems.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you
    >> can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about
    >> and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not
    >> be).

    >
    > It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    > and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    > Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >


    Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD that
    you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a charlattan
    since this has only been known to work for windos. If you had any knowledge
    at all about the reality of such thing, you would have obliged and
    disclosed your attachment.

    >>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
    >>>>> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
    >>>>> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
    >>>>> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's the dumb thing:
    >>>>
    >>>> "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
    >>>> drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
    >>>> safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
    >>>> injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
    >>>> event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
    >>>> speedier trips.â€
    >>>>
    >>>> What nonsense.
    >>>
    >>> It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher
    >>> proportion of winter accidents becuase the drives believe their vehicle
    >>> is safer in these types of conditions (it's not).
    >>>

    >>
    >> Obviously, SUV's have a higher center of gravity that undermines whatever
    >> safety features they are built with. For a period of time, there seemed
    >> to be a Ford fatality just about every week.
    >>
    >> But your logic does not translate well for other vehicles such as sedans,
    >> minivans, etc. Automobile Technology has reduced the number of fatalities
    >> attributed to design issues, to be sure, however I would be hard pressed
    >> to believe that this same technology may be the indirect (influential)
    >> cause of the accidents.

    >
    > Here is another article:
    >
    > http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >
    > This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved safety
    > measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user feeling more
    > confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >


    Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to greater
    number of fatalities or accidents.

    >> So, even if this dumb theory could be taken at face value, there is
    >> absolutely no correlation to our discussion on operating systems. Linux
    >> provides a safer and sane computer environment for the consumer, which
    >> means that users migrating away from windos will not "suffer" the
    >> atrocious maladies they are accustomed; and certainly it is absurd to
    >> infer that a safer computing environment means a greater risk.

    >
    > The correlation is that if a user has a 'safer' OS or browser they believe
    > they don't have to do the things that less 'safe' OS's or browsers might
    > require such as applying patches or practicing safe surfing.
    >


    Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it is the
    final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on top of having
    to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which will invariably break
    something else in the system.

    Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the safest
    choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent level of
    design integrity.

    But I like your stance that MS garbage of OS forces users to be paranoid and
    resigned to live in an endless cycle of unremedied vulnerabilities and
    'safety' measures.

    >>>>>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
    >>>>>> programmers ever.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Based on what?
    >>>>
    >>>> Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
    >>>> operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
    >>>> the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.
    >>>
    >>> I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.
    >>>

    >> Microsoft WANTS a cool OS. That's why they spent millions aping OS X, of
    >> course, over a fragile and vulnerable platform.

    >
    > How do you know what Microsoft wants?
    >


    They have spent millions cloning Mac OS X and using "WoW" as the selling
    point.

    >>>> Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
    >>>> pathetically compromiseable system.
    >>>
    >>> Even I will concede Vista is a pig.
    >>>
    >>>> Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
    >>>> will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
    >>>> industry, academia, and the consumer.
    >>>
    >>> You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting
    >>> the same for *nix

    >>
    >> You go right ahead and get a nice cup of coffee and wait.
    >>
    >> And wait...
    >>
    >> ... and wait.
    >>
    >>
    >> ...and...

    >
    > So it's only going to take me the time to finish my coffee before a new
    > *nix bug is found? That's even quicker than I imagined.


    And you do seem to imagine a lot, to the point of hallucination.

    > You have to admit
    > there are bugs in *nix or you really are beyond hope.
    >


    Bugs and all, Unix and its variants remain the safest and most reliable
    platform for consumers. Bar-none.

    > Here is some fun reading for you:
    >
    >

    http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/36f95df0e727a930/112639a4
    >

    9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horrendous&rnum=1#112639a49b61c770

    All opinionated bullshit from some wintard that has circulated COLA for
    ages.

    >
    > Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:
    >
    > http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838
    >


    More pointless nonsense. Are insults your last recourse?

    Honestly, if Linux wasn't the threat that MS believes it to be, none of this
    anti-Linux crap would be floating around. Instead, it would be largely
    ignored... ala OS/2.

    > Especially sections 7 and 8


    It does not change the realities that will go down in computing history:
    Microsoft really does have incompetent teams that churn out garbage and
    feed it to the consumer; Windos really is the worst most insecure and
    unreliable OS ever made that does not stack against OSX and Linux; MS
    really is one evil business entity that has no ethical backbone.

    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Feb 23, 2007
    #10
  11. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:3HuDh.190583$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:


    [edited for brevity]

    >>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice
    >>>> 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should be able to open
    >>>> without any problems.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however,
    >>> you can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all
    >>> about and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it
    >>> will not be).

    >>
    >> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    >> and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    >> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD
    > that you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a
    > charlattan since this has only been known to work for windos. If you had
    > any knowledge at all about the reality of such thing, you would have
    > obliged and disclosed your attachment.


    It's hardly a WMD. A simple script will suffice. In any case your lack of confidence has been noted.

    >>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things
    >>>>>> and in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb
    >>>>>> things because they believe the system will protect them. Do a
    >>>>>> search on "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.

    >>
    >> Here is another article:
    >>
    >> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >>
    >> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved
    >> safety measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user feeling
    >> more confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >>

    > Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to greater
    > number of fatalities or accidents.


    It is a hypothesis but has been shown in many cases to hold true. Of course it may not apply under all
    circumstances.

    > Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    > whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it is
    > the final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on top of
    > having to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which will
    > invariably break something else in the system.


    There is no such thing as a final patch. Often additional problems are found later in the same component.
    Yes *nix patches generally arrive sooner than MS patches but workarounds are generally available
    immediatly.

    > Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the safest
    > choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent level of
    > design integrity.


    How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Again it only takes on hole to sink a ship. Ultimately it's up to
    the user to maintain their system regardless of the OS. If the user fails to install a patch they will be sunk in
    no time.

    >> Here is some fun reading for you:
    >>
    >>

    > http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread
    > /36f95df0e727a930/112639a4
    >>

    > 9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horrendous&rnum=1#112639a49b6
    > 1c770
    >
    > All opinionated bullshit from some wintard that has circulated COLA for
    > ages.
    >
    >> Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:
    >>
    >> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838
    >>

    >
    > More pointless nonsense. Are insults your last recourse?


    What insults? The Linux advocacy people wrote it. You could learn from them. I am not against Linux. I am
    against people such as yourself who believe it to be a panacea and anything else is simply rubbish
    (especially if it's from Microsoft).

    > Honestly, if Linux wasn't the threat that MS believes it to be, none of
    > this anti-Linux crap would be floating around. Instead, it would be
    > largely ignored... ala OS/2.
    >
    >> Especially sections 7 and 8

    >
    > It does not change the realities that will go down in computing history:
    > Microsoft really does have incompetent teams that churn out garbage and
    > feed it to the consumer; Windos really is the worst most insecure and
    > unreliable OS ever made that does not stack against OSX and Linux; MS
    > really is one evil business entity that has no ethical backbone.


    I'll wait for the book...I'm sure it will be a good read!

    I believe that ultimately some form of *nix will be quite common (no thanks to people like you...the equivalent
    of a car salesman for *nix).
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Feb 23, 2007
    #11
  12. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:3HuDh.190583$:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    >
    > [edited for brevity]
    >
    >>>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice
    >>>>> 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should be able to open
    >>>>> without any problems.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however,
    >>>> you can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all
    >>>> about and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it
    >>>> will not be).
    >>>
    >>> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    >>> and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    >>> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD
    >> that you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a
    >> charlattan since this has only been known to work for windos. If you had
    >> any knowledge at all about the reality of such thing, you would have
    >> obliged and disclosed your attachment.

    >
    > It's hardly a WMD. A simple script will suffice. In any case your lack of
    > confidence has been noted.
    >


    I will not be spammed just because some morron thinks he can disable a linux
    machine with a simple script; This really displays your sheer ignorance on
    how Unix OS's work in general.

    >>>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things
    >>>>>>> and in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb
    >>>>>>> things because they believe the system will protect them. Do a
    >>>>>>> search on "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>
    >>> Here is another article:
    >>>
    >>> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >>>
    >>> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved
    >>> safety measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user feeling
    >>> more confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >>>

    >> Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to greater
    >> number of fatalities or accidents.

    >
    > It is a hypothesis but has been shown in many cases to hold true. Of
    > course it may not apply under all circumstances.


    Shown by whom? And in what cases? I don't see how you intend to support such
    bullshit with verifiable facts.

    >
    >> Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    >> whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it is
    >> the final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on top of
    >> having to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which will
    >> invariably break something else in the system.

    >
    > There is no such thing as a final patch. Often additional problems are
    > found later in the same component.


    Post proof.

    > Yes *nix patches generally arrive
    > sooner than MS patches but workarounds are generally available immediatly.
    >


    And that's the world of windos: Inevitable and continuous cycles of patching
    and 'working around'.

    >> Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the safest
    >> choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent level of
    >> design integrity.

    >
    > How exactly did you come to that conclusion?


    By the fact that windos remains to this day the least secure and least
    reliable of all available operating systems.

    > Again it only takes on hole
    > to sink a ship.


    Again, it takes a hole the size of a dime to sink windos.

    > Ultimately it's up to the user to maintain their system
    > regardless of the OS. If the user fails to install a patch they will be
    > sunk in no time.
    >


    That's an obvious observation applicable to any environment, but a system
    that requires a great number of patches at an equal great frequency cannot
    be trusted.

    > >> Here is some fun reading for you:
    >>>
    >>>

    >> http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread
    >> /36f95df0e727a930/112639a4
    >>>

    >> 9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horrendous&rnum=1#112639a49b6
    >> 1c770
    >>
    >> All opinionated bullshit from some wintard that has circulated COLA for
    >> ages.
    >>
    >>> Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:
    >>>
    >>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838
    >>>

    >>
    >> More pointless nonsense. Are insults your last recourse?

    >
    > What insults? The Linux advocacy people wrote it.


    That's a lie and you well know it (or maybe not), you have no knowledge of
    the author and his intentions (which you seem to have inferred from reading
    the content). It was written by some aggravating Linux foe who just posted
    it to COLA.

    > You could learn from
    > them.


    What, exactly, do you think anyone could learn from "them", when you are to
    obtuse to differentiate between an authentic post and a farce?

    > I am not against Linux.
    > I am against people such as yourself who
    > believe it to be a panacea and anything else is simply rubbish (especially
    > if it's from Microsoft).
    >


    Given the long history of MS incompetence and the shoddy products people
    have had to suffer from, Linux really is a panacea.

    >> Honestly, if Linux wasn't the threat that MS believes it to be, none of
    >> this anti-Linux crap would be floating around. Instead, it would be
    >> largely ignored... ala OS/2.
    >>
    >>> Especially sections 7 and 8

    >>
    >> It does not change the realities that will go down in computing history:
    >> Microsoft really does have incompetent teams that churn out garbage and
    >> feed it to the consumer; Windos really is the worst most insecure and
    >> unreliable OS ever made that does not stack against OSX and Linux; MS
    >> really is one evil business entity that has no ethical backbone.

    >
    > I'll wait for the book...I'm sure it will be a good read!
    >


    Actually, there's plenty of literature out there already that will help you
    get a better grip on reality.

    > I believe that ultimately some form of *nix will be quite common (no
    > thanks to people like you...the equivalent of a car salesman for *nix).


    Good. You've finally seen the light.


    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Feb 24, 2007
    #12
  13. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:3zRDh.14524$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:3HuDh.190583$:
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    >>
    >> [edited for brevity]
    >>
    >>>>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice
    >>>>>> 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should be able to open
    >>>>>> without any problems.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however,
    >>>>> you can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is
    >>>>> all about and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of
    >>>>> course it will not be).
    >>>>
    >>>> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    >>>> and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    >>>> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD
    >>> that you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a
    >>> charlattan since this has only been known to work for windos. If you
    >>> had any knowledge at all about the reality of such thing, you would
    >>> have obliged and disclosed your attachment.

    >>
    >> It's hardly a WMD. A simple script will suffice. In any case your lack
    >> of confidence has been noted.
    >>

    >
    > I will not be spammed just because some morron thinks he can disable a
    > linux machine with a simple script; This really displays your sheer
    > ignorance on how Unix OS's work in general.


    Use a disposable address. They are easy to get. FWIW I have a fair bit of *nix experience.

    >>>>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things
    >>>>>>>> and in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb
    >>>>>>>> things because they believe the system will protect them. Do a
    >>>>>>>> search on "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here is another article:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >>>>
    >>>> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved
    >>>> safety measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user feeling
    >>>> more confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >>>>
    >>> Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to greater
    >>> number of fatalities or accidents.

    >>
    >> It is a hypothesis but has been shown in many cases to hold true. Of
    >> course it may not apply under all circumstances.

    >
    > Shown by whom? And in what cases? I don't see how you intend to support
    > such bullshit with verifiable facts.


    There is one reference listed above to Purdue University. A simple Google search for "Offset Hypothesis"
    will find you many more.

    >>> Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    >>> whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it is
    >>> the final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on top of
    >>> having to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which will
    >>> invariably break something else in the system.

    >>
    >> There is no such thing as a final patch. Often additional problems are
    >> found later in the same component.

    >
    > Post proof.


    Here are two patches for the SuSE Kernel released within 3 months of each other:

    http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/127226/170/
    http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/126321/170/

    There are numerous others involving the same components.

    >> Yes *nix patches generally arrive
    >> sooner than MS patches but workarounds are generally available
    >> immediatly.

    >
    > And that's the world of windos: Inevitable and continuous cycles of
    > patching and 'working around'.


    This is a fact of life for ALL modern software.

    >>> Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the
    >>> safest choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent
    >>> level of design integrity.

    >>
    >> How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

    >
    > By the fact that windos remains to this day the least secure and least
    > reliable of all available operating systems.


    As you would say "Post proof"

    Here is a recent article quoting a security expert from eEye on Microsoft and Vista security:

    But Mr Maiffret does not blame the software giant for the mismatch between the market's expectations
    about Vista's security and the less palatable reality. "There's no other software company that does more to
    secure their code than Microsoft," Mr Maiffret says. "It's weird to me that a lot of people think there should
    be this thing that we reach at some point where the operating system is impenetrable... I don't think that is
    ever going to happen."

    Source http://www.smh.com.au/news/security/vista-still-vulnerable/2007/02/26/1172338546822.html

    No OS is totally secure and it's level of security changes from patch to patch. If your OS is not getting
    patched it's likely very insecure.

    >> Again it only takes on hole
    >> to sink a ship.

    >
    > Again, it takes a hole the size of a dime to sink windos.


    It's irrelevant what the 'size' is. A critical hole is just that. This is why ultimately how well you maintain your
    system as well as your computer practices that will ultimately determine your security.

    A well patched OS trumps a poorly patched one when it comes to security (regardless of the OS). If you
    are not maintaining your OS you ARE vulnerable regardless of the OS.

    >> Ultimately it's up to the user to maintain their system
    >> regardless of the OS. If the user fails to install a patch they will be
    >> sunk in no time.
    >>

    >
    > That's an obvious observation applicable to any environment, but a
    > system that requires a great number of patches at an equal great
    > frequency cannot be trusted.
    >
    >> >> Here is some fun reading for you:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thre
    >>> ad /36f95df0e727a930/112639a4
    >>>>
    >>> 9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horrendous&rnum=1#112639a49
    >>> b6 1c770
    >>>
    >>> All opinionated bullshit from some wintard that has circulated COLA
    >>> for ages.
    >>>
    >>>> Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> More pointless nonsense. Are insults your last recourse?

    >>
    >> What insults? The Linux advocacy people wrote it.

    >
    > That's a lie and you well know it (or maybe not), you have no knowledge
    > of the author and his intentions (which you seem to have inferred from
    > reading the content). It was written by some aggravating Linux foe who
    > just posted it to COLA.
    >
    >> You could learn from
    >> them.

    >
    > What, exactly, do you think anyone could learn from "them", when you are
    > to obtuse to differentiate between an authentic post and a farce?
    >
    >> I am not against Linux.
    >> I am against people such as yourself who
    >> believe it to be a panacea and anything else is simply rubbish
    >> (especially if it's from Microsoft).
    >>

    >
    > Given the long history of MS incompetence and the shoddy products people
    > have had to suffer from, Linux really is a panacea.
    >
    >>> Honestly, if Linux wasn't the threat that MS believes it to be, none
    >>> of this anti-Linux crap would be floating around. Instead, it would be
    >>> largely ignored... ala OS/2.
    >>>
    >>>> Especially sections 7 and 8
    >>>
    >>> It does not change the realities that will go down in computing
    >>> history: Microsoft really does have incompetent teams that churn out
    >>> garbage and feed it to the consumer; Windos really is the worst most
    >>> insecure and unreliable OS ever made that does not stack against OSX
    >>> and Linux; MS really is one evil business entity that has no ethical
    >>> backbone.

    >>
    >> I'll wait for the book...I'm sure it will be a good read!
    >>

    > Actually, there's plenty of literature out there already that will help
    > you get a better grip on reality.


    Ahh...insults...the last resort for someone who cannot come up with a intelligent argument.

    >> I believe that ultimately some form of *nix will be quite common (no
    >> thanks to people like you...the equivalent of a car salesman for *nix).

    >
    > Good. You've finally seen the light.
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Feb 27, 2007
    #13
  14. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:3zRDh.14524$:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>
    >>> Au79 <> wrote in news:3HuDh.190583$:
    >>>
    >>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [edited for brevity]
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice
    >>>>>>> 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should be able to open
    >>>>>>> without any problems.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however,
    >>>>>> you can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is
    >>>>>> all about and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of
    >>>>>> course it will not be).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    >>>>> and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    >>>>> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD
    >>>> that you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a
    >>>> charlattan since this has only been known to work for windos. If you
    >>>> had any knowledge at all about the reality of such thing, you would
    >>>> have obliged and disclosed your attachment.
    >>>
    >>> It's hardly a WMD. A simple script will suffice. In any case your lack
    >>> of confidence has been noted.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I will not be spammed just because some morron thinks he can disable a
    >> linux machine with a simple script; This really displays your sheer
    >> ignorance on how Unix OS's work in general.

    >
    > Use a disposable address. They are easy to get. FWIW I have a fair bit of
    > *nix experience.
    >


    I don't know how you can attempt to define "fair bit" when you argue,
    contrary to overwhelming evidence, that windos is as secure or more secure
    than Unix.

    I would certainly believe that anyone with a passing knowledge of both
    architectures could plainly see the obvious differences that put Unix above
    windos for security and reliability.

    >>>>>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things
    >>>>>>>>> and in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb
    >>>>>>>>> things because they believe the system will protect them. Do a
    >>>>>>>>> search on "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here is another article:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved
    >>>>> safety measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user feeling
    >>>>> more confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to greater
    >>>> number of fatalities or accidents.
    >>>
    >>> It is a hypothesis but has been shown in many cases to hold true. Of
    >>> course it may not apply under all circumstances.

    >>
    >> Shown by whom? And in what cases? I don't see how you intend to support
    >> such bullshit with verifiable facts.

    >
    > There is one reference listed above to Purdue University. A simple Google
    > search for "Offset Hypothesis" will find you many more.
    >


    A simple Google search for "Offset Hypothesis" simply regurgitated what you
    have been proposing all along. However, this nonsense simply does not
    translate into any applicable form for computing platforms.

    You argue that a rock-solid and secure system, such as Linux, will
    inevitably lead to users being more careless about maintaining their
    systems, while the frailty of windos will force users to always stay on
    their toes- or else pay the consequences.

    This sheer silliness.

    >>>> Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    >>>> whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it is
    >>>> the final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on top of
    >>>> having to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which will
    >>>> invariably break something else in the system.
    >>>
    >>> There is no such thing as a final patch. Often additional problems are
    >>> found later in the same component.

    >>
    >> Post proof.

    >
    > Here are two patches for the SuSE Kernel released within 3 months of each
    > other:
    >


    Two patches in three months... mhhh... I wonder how it compares with
    microsoft's patching cycles.

    > http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/127226/170/
    > http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/126321/170/
    >
    > There are numerous others involving the same components.
    >


    There is no comparison if you are trying to present Linux as being equal to
    windos when it comes to vulnerabilities, patching, and the quality of the
    fix.

    MS has spent millions trying to stave off vulnerabilities and exposures in
    their systems. Their patching program, by sheer volume and re-patching
    frequencies, underlines the shoddiness of their OS.

    >>> Yes *nix patches generally arrive
    >>> sooner than MS patches but workarounds are generally available
    >>> immediatly.

    >>
    >> And that's the world of windos: Inevitable and continuous cycles of
    >> patching and 'working around'.

    >
    > This is a fact of life for ALL modern software.
    >


    But not ALL modern software is equal. Linux is an engineering success by the
    academics and programmers that form the OSS community; in contrast, windos
    is a proprietary monstrosity that fails to meet the criteria of good
    design, proven by the endless vulnerabilities that keep cropping up.

    >>>> Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the
    >>>> safest choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent
    >>>> level of design integrity.
    >>>
    >>> How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

    >>
    >> By the fact that windos remains to this day the least secure and least
    >> reliable of all available operating systems.

    >
    > As you would say "Post proof"
    >


    Read my posts. I have posted numerous articles showcasing the frailty of a
    system touted to be the "safest" yet.

    > Here is a recent article quoting a security expert from eEye on Microsoft
    > and Vista security:
    >
    > But Mr Maiffret does not blame the software giant for the mismatch between
    > the market's expectations about Vista's security and the less palatable
    > reality.


    The reality, of course, that there are no legions of viruses, trojans, and
    spyware for Linux or Mac OSX.

    > "There's no other software company that does more to secure their
    > code than Microsoft,"


    He's right, there is not other company that does more to TRY to secure their
    poor, hopless product.

    > Mr Maiffret says. "It's weird to me that a lot of
    > people think there should be this thing that we reach at some point where
    > the operating system is impenetrable... I don't think that is ever going
    > to happen."


    For Windos anyways. Today, right now (even with your so-called script
    running around all over the internet assaulting poor unsuspecting Linux) I
    feel much safer and tranquil in my computing environment just because I'm
    using Linux.

    >
    > Source
    >

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/security/vista-still-vulnerable/2007/02/26/1172338546822.html
    >
    > No OS is totally secure and it's level of security changes from patch to
    > patch. If your OS is not getting patched it's likely very insecure.
    >


    Speaking in relative terms, compared to windos, Linux really is totally
    secure. Of course there will be threats for all systems, but the level of
    vulnerability of the windos platform is just too laughable.

    For as long there are no real threats for Linux, to the point of causing
    irreparable damage to the system, it will always be "totally" secure when
    compared to the risks associated with windos.

    >>> Again it only takes on hole
    >>> to sink a ship.

    >>
    >> Again, it takes a hole the size of a dime to sink windos.

    >
    > It's irrelevant what the 'size' is. A critical hole is just that. This is
    > why ultimately how well you maintain your system as well as your computer
    > practices that will ultimately determine your security.
    >


    You are right only to a certian extent: A virus or some other parasite can
    bring your entire computer to a halt. This really happens to people. Even a
    little VB script can ruin anyone's day, and there are thousands of such
    holes in windos.

    > A well patched OS trumps a poorly patched one when it comes to security
    > (regardless of the OS).


    Not true. A marginally patched Linux box will trump a fully patched windos
    box.

    > If you are not maintaining your OS you ARE
    > vulnerable regardless of the OS.
    >


    Windos requires unreasonable maintenance, as I said before, it forces the
    user into an unholy loop of third-party solutions and absurd patching
    cycles.

    >>> Ultimately it's up to the user to maintain their system
    >>> regardless of the OS. If the user fails to install a patch they will be
    >>> sunk in no time.
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's an obvious observation applicable to any environment, but a
    >> system that requires a great number of patches at an equal great
    >> frequency cannot be trusted.
    >>
    >>> >> Here is some fun reading for you:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thre
    >>>> ad /36f95df0e727a930/112639a4
    >>>>>
    >>>> 9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horrendous&rnum=1#112639a49
    >>>> b6 1c770
    >>>>
    >>>> All opinionated bullshit from some wintard that has circulated COLA
    >>>> for ages.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> More pointless nonsense. Are insults your last recourse?
    >>>
    >>> What insults? The Linux advocacy people wrote it.

    >>
    >> That's a lie and you well know it (or maybe not), you have no knowledge
    >> of the author and his intentions (which you seem to have inferred from
    >> reading the content). It was written by some aggravating Linux foe who
    >> just posted it to COLA.
    >>
    >>> You could learn from
    >>> them.

    >>
    >> What, exactly, do you think anyone could learn from "them", when you are
    >> to obtuse to differentiate between an authentic post and a farce?
    >>
    >>> I am not against Linux.
    >>> I am against people such as yourself who
    >>> believe it to be a panacea and anything else is simply rubbish
    >>> (especially if it's from Microsoft).
    >>>

    >>
    >> Given the long history of MS incompetence and the shoddy products people
    >> have had to suffer from, Linux really is a panacea.
    >>
    >>>> Honestly, if Linux wasn't the threat that MS believes it to be, none
    >>>> of this anti-Linux crap would be floating around. Instead, it would be
    >>>> largely ignored... ala OS/2.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Especially sections 7 and 8
    >>>>
    >>>> It does not change the realities that will go down in computing
    >>>> history: Microsoft really does have incompetent teams that churn out
    >>>> garbage and feed it to the consumer; Windos really is the worst most
    >>>> insecure and unreliable OS ever made that does not stack against OSX
    >>>> and Linux; MS really is one evil business entity that has no ethical
    >>>> backbone.
    >>>
    >>> I'll wait for the book...I'm sure it will be a good read!
    >>>

    >> Actually, there's plenty of literature out there already that will help
    >> you get a better grip on reality.

    >
    > Ahh...insults...the last resort for someone who cannot come up with a
    > intelligent argument.
    >


    "I'll wait for the book...I'm sure it will be a good read!" was not an
    intelligent argument, therefore, by your own logic you deserve to be
    insulted.

    >>> I believe that ultimately some form of *nix will be quite common (no
    >>> thanks to people like you...the equivalent of a car salesman for *nix).

    >>
    >> Good. You've finally seen the light.


    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Mar 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:hGuFh.109296$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:3zRDh.14524$:
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Au79 <> wrote in
    >>>> news:3HuDh.190583$:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> [edited for brevity]
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice
    >>>>>>>> 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should be able to open
    >>>>>>>> without any problems.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email;
    >>>>>>> however, you can just say plainly and publicly state what the
    >>>>>>> attachment is all about and if it is a potential threat to my
    >>>>>>> system (which of course it will not be).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    >>>>>> and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    >>>>>> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD
    >>>>> that you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a
    >>>>> charlattan since this has only been known to work for windos. If you
    >>>>> had any knowledge at all about the reality of such thing, you would
    >>>>> have obliged and disclosed your attachment.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's hardly a WMD. A simple script will suffice. In any case your
    >>>> lack of confidence has been noted.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I will not be spammed just because some morron thinks he can disable a
    >>> linux machine with a simple script; This really displays your sheer
    >>> ignorance on how Unix OS's work in general.

    >>
    >> Use a disposable address. They are easy to get. FWIW I have a fair bit
    >> of *nix experience.
    >>

    >
    > I don't know how you can attempt to define "fair bit" when you argue,
    > contrary to overwhelming evidence, that windos is as secure or more
    > secure than Unix.
    >
    > I would certainly believe that anyone with a passing knowledge of both
    > architectures could plainly see the obvious differences that put Unix
    > above windos for security and reliability.


    A systems security is a moving target as new vulnerbalities are found and fixed. What can be totally secure
    one day quickly becomes at risk when a new vulnerability is found. This is true regardless of the OS.

    My real world experience is that I have never had a Windows box compromised. I will certainly agree that
    older incarnations of Windows were less than reliable but have come a long way.

    >>>>>>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb
    >>>>>>>>>> things and in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do
    >>>>>>>>>> dumb things because they believe the system will protect them.
    >>>>>>>>>> Do a search on "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Here is another article:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved
    >>>>>> safety measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user
    >>>>>> feeling more confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to
    >>>>> greater number of fatalities or accidents.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is a hypothesis but has been shown in many cases to hold true. Of
    >>>> course it may not apply under all circumstances.
    >>>
    >>> Shown by whom? And in what cases? I don't see how you intend to
    >>> support such bullshit with verifiable facts.

    >>
    >> There is one reference listed above to Purdue University. A simple
    >> Google search for "Offset Hypothesis" will find you many more.
    >>

    >
    > A simple Google search for "Offset Hypothesis" simply regurgitated what
    > you have been proposing all along. However, this nonsense simply does
    > not translate into any applicable form for computing platforms.
    >
    > You argue that a rock-solid and secure system, such as Linux, will
    > inevitably lead to users being more careless about maintaining their
    > systems, while the frailty of windos will force users to always stay on
    > their toes- or else pay the consequences.
    >
    > This sheer silliness.


    You put words in my mouth. I simply said that it has been shown on more than one occaision that
    improvements in safety don't necessarily result in real world benefits as users tend to be less careful
    believing that these improvements will protect them.

    >>>>> Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    >>>>> whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it
    >>>>> is the final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on
    >>>>> top of having to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which
    >>>>> will invariably break something else in the system.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is no such thing as a final patch. Often additional problems
    >>>> are found later in the same component.
    >>>
    >>> Post proof.

    >>
    >> Here are two patches for the SuSE Kernel released within 3 months of
    >> each other:

    >
    > Two patches in three months... mhhh... I wonder how it compares with
    > microsoft's patching cycles.
    >
    >> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/127226/170/
    >> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/126321/170/
    >>
    >> There are numerous others involving the same components.
    >>

    > There is no comparison if you are trying to present Linux as being equal
    > to windos when it comes to vulnerabilities, patching, and the quality of
    > the fix.
    >
    > MS has spent millions trying to stave off vulnerabilities and exposures
    > in their systems. Their patching program, by sheer volume and
    > re-patching frequencies, underlines the shoddiness of their OS.


    15 SuSe security patches in January vs 12 for Microsoft:

    http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/blogcategory/100/112

    >>>> Yes *nix patches generally arrive
    >>>> sooner than MS patches but workarounds are generally available
    >>>> immediatly.
    >>>
    >>> And that's the world of windos: Inevitable and continuous cycles of
    >>> patching and 'working around'.

    >>
    >> This is a fact of life for ALL modern software.
    >>

    > But not ALL modern software is equal. Linux is an engineering success by
    > the academics and programmers that form the OSS community; in contrast,
    > windos is a proprietary monstrosity that fails to meet the criteria of
    > good design, proven by the endless vulnerabilities that keep cropping
    > up.
    >
    >>>>> Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the
    >>>>> safest choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent
    >>>>> level of design integrity.
    >>>>
    >>>> How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
    >>>
    >>> By the fact that windos remains to this day the least secure and least
    >>> reliable of all available operating systems.

    >>
    >> As you would say "Post proof"
    >>

    >
    > Read my posts. I have posted numerous articles showcasing the frailty of
    > a system touted to be the "safest" yet.
    >
    >> Here is a recent article quoting a security expert from eEye on
    >> Microsoft and Vista security:
    >>
    >> But Mr Maiffret does not blame the software giant for the mismatch
    >> between the market's expectations about Vista's security and the less
    >> palatable reality.

    >
    > The reality, of course, that there are no legions of viruses, trojans,
    > and spyware for Linux or Mac OSX.


    It's only good business. Windows currently has the largest market share and if I wish to get my 'product' out
    and make the most profit it only makes sense to go after that market. In case you haven't heard
    spyware/malware is all about making money.

    The Month of Apple Bugs projects showed that OSX is not a secure as Apple would like us to believe.

    >> "There's no other software company that does more to secure their
    >> code than Microsoft,"

    >
    > He's right, there is not other company that does more to TRY to secure
    > their poor, hopless product.
    >
    >> Mr Maiffret says. "It's weird to me that a lot of
    >> people think there should be this thing that we reach at some point
    >> where the operating system is impenetrable... I don't think that is
    >> ever going to happen."

    >
    > For Windos anyways. Today, right now (even with your so-called script
    > running around all over the internet assaulting poor unsuspecting Linux)
    > I feel much safer and tranquil in my computing environment just because
    > I'm using Linux.


    Good for you. You are of course delusional because as Mr Maiffret says and pretty much any secure
    expert would agree no system is entirely secure.

    >> Source
    >>

    > http://www.smh.com.au/news/security/vista-still-vulnerable/2007/02/26/117
    > 2338546822.html
    >>
    >> No OS is totally secure and it's level of security changes from patch
    >> to patch. If your OS is not getting patched it's likely very insecure.
    >>

    >
    > Speaking in relative terms, compared to windos, Linux really is totally
    > secure. Of course there will be threats for all systems, but the level
    > of vulnerability of the windos platform is just too laughable.
    >
    > For as long there are no real threats for Linux, to the point of causing
    > irreparable damage to the system, it will always be "totally" secure
    > when compared to the risks associated with windos.


    As I said above nothing is '"totally" secure. It's also very difficult to compare the OS's. There are multiple
    versions of Windows and we won't even get into the numerous *nix distros. As I have said before it only
    takes one unpatched critical flaw regardless of OS to make it totally insecure.

    >>>> Again it only takes on hole
    >>>> to sink a ship.
    >>>
    >>> Again, it takes a hole the size of a dime to sink windos.

    >>
    >> It's irrelevant what the 'size' is. A critical hole is just that. This
    >> is why ultimately how well you maintain your system as well as your
    >> computer practices that will ultimately determine your security.
    >>

    >
    > You are right only to a certian extent: A virus or some other parasite
    > can bring your entire computer to a halt. This really happens to people.
    > Even a little VB script can ruin anyone's day, and there are thousands
    > of such holes in windos.


    If this was truly the case no one would be using Windows as it would be unusable. The reality is that a
    properly maintained Windows system is safe and reliable.

    >> A well patched OS trumps a poorly patched one when it comes to security
    >> (regardless of the OS).

    >
    > Not true. A marginally patched Linux box will trump a fully patched
    > windos box.


    ROTFL

    A critical flaw left unpatched is going to get you into trouble in short order regardless of the OS.

    >> If you are not maintaining your OS you ARE
    >> vulnerable regardless of the OS.
    >>

    >
    > Windos requires unreasonable maintenance, as I said before, it forces
    > the user into an unholy loop of third-party solutions and absurd
    > patching cycles.


    That's a subjective view and I would disagree. Patching is a fact of life in our current, hostile, environment.
    If you wish to remain safe on the Internet you need to stay on top of the latest vulnerabilities and address
    them.
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Mar 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Au79

    Annette Guest

    "Fuzzy Logic" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98E66CD2F937Cbobarcabca@199.185.223.74...
    > Au79 <> wrote in news:hGuFh.109296$:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>
    >>> Au79 <> wrote in news:3zRDh.14524$:
    >>>
    >>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Au79 <> wrote in
    >>>>> news:3HuDh.190583$:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> [edited for brevity]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice
    >>>>>>>>> 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should be able to open
    >>>>>>>>> without any problems.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email;
    >>>>>>>> however, you can just say plainly and publicly state what the
    >>>>>>>> attachment is all about and if it is a potential threat to my
    >>>>>>>> system (which of course it will not be).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    >>>>>>> and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    >>>>>>> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD
    >>>>>> that you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a
    >>>>>> charlattan since this has only been known to work for windos. If you
    >>>>>> had any knowledge at all about the reality of such thing, you would
    >>>>>> have obliged and disclosed your attachment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's hardly a WMD. A simple script will suffice. In any case your
    >>>>> lack of confidence has been noted.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I will not be spammed just because some morron thinks he can disable a
    >>>> linux machine with a simple script; This really displays your sheer
    >>>> ignorance on how Unix OS's work in general.
    >>>
    >>> Use a disposable address. They are easy to get. FWIW I have a fair bit
    >>> of *nix experience.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't know how you can attempt to define "fair bit" when you argue,
    >> contrary to overwhelming evidence, that windos is as secure or more
    >> secure than Unix.
    >>
    >> I would certainly believe that anyone with a passing knowledge of both
    >> architectures could plainly see the obvious differences that put Unix
    >> above windos for security and reliability.

    >
    > A systems security is a moving target as new vulnerbalities are found and
    > fixed. What can be totally secure
    > one day quickly becomes at risk when a new vulnerability is found. This is
    > true regardless of the OS.
    >
    > My real world experience is that I have never had a Windows box
    > compromised. I will certainly agree that
    > older incarnations of Windows were less than reliable but have come a long
    > way.
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb
    >>>>>>>>>>> things and in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do
    >>>>>>>>>>> dumb things because they believe the system will protect them.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Do a search on "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Here is another article:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved
    >>>>>>> safety measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user
    >>>>>>> feeling more confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to
    >>>>>> greater number of fatalities or accidents.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is a hypothesis but has been shown in many cases to hold true. Of
    >>>>> course it may not apply under all circumstances.
    >>>>
    >>>> Shown by whom? And in what cases? I don't see how you intend to
    >>>> support such bullshit with verifiable facts.
    >>>
    >>> There is one reference listed above to Purdue University. A simple
    >>> Google search for "Offset Hypothesis" will find you many more.
    >>>

    >>
    >> A simple Google search for "Offset Hypothesis" simply regurgitated what
    >> you have been proposing all along. However, this nonsense simply does
    >> not translate into any applicable form for computing platforms.
    >>
    >> You argue that a rock-solid and secure system, such as Linux, will
    >> inevitably lead to users being more careless about maintaining their
    >> systems, while the frailty of windos will force users to always stay on
    >> their toes- or else pay the consequences.
    >>
    >> This sheer silliness.

    >
    > You put words in my mouth. I simply said that it has been shown on more
    > than one occaision that
    > improvements in safety don't necessarily result in real world benefits as
    > users tend to be less careful
    > believing that these improvements will protect them.
    >
    >>>>>> Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    >>>>>> whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it
    >>>>>> is the final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on
    >>>>>> top of having to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which
    >>>>>> will invariably break something else in the system.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is no such thing as a final patch. Often additional problems
    >>>>> are found later in the same component.
    >>>>
    >>>> Post proof.
    >>>
    >>> Here are two patches for the SuSE Kernel released within 3 months of
    >>> each other:

    >>
    >> Two patches in three months... mhhh... I wonder how it compares with
    >> microsoft's patching cycles.
    >>
    >>> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/127226/170/
    >>> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/126321/170/
    >>>
    >>> There are numerous others involving the same components.
    >>>

    >> There is no comparison if you are trying to present Linux as being equal
    >> to windos when it comes to vulnerabilities, patching, and the quality of
    >> the fix.
    >>
    > > MS has spent millions trying to stave off vulnerabilities and exposures
    >> in their systems. Their patching program, by sheer volume and
    >> re-patching frequencies, underlines the shoddiness of their OS.

    >
    > 15 SuSe security patches in January vs 12 for Microsoft:
    >
    > http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/blogcategory/100/112
    >
    >>>>> Yes *nix patches generally arrive
    >>>>> sooner than MS patches but workarounds are generally available
    >>>>> immediatly.
    >>>>
    >>>> And that's the world of windos: Inevitable and continuous cycles of
    >>>> patching and 'working around'.
    >>>
    >>> This is a fact of life for ALL modern software.
    >>>

    >> But not ALL modern software is equal. Linux is an engineering success by
    >> the academics and programmers that form the OSS community; in contrast,
    >> windos is a proprietary monstrosity that fails to meet the criteria of
    >> good design, proven by the endless vulnerabilities that keep cropping
    >> up.
    >>
    >>>>>> Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the
    >>>>>> safest choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent
    >>>>>> level of design integrity.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
    >>>>
    >>>> By the fact that windos remains to this day the least secure and least
    >>>> reliable of all available operating systems.
    >>>
    >>> As you would say "Post proof"
    >>>

    >>
    >> Read my posts. I have posted numerous articles showcasing the frailty of
    >> a system touted to be the "safest" yet.
    >>
    >>> Here is a recent article quoting a security expert from eEye on
    >>> Microsoft and Vista security:
    >>>
    >>> But Mr Maiffret does not blame the software giant for the mismatch
    >>> between the market's expectations about Vista's security and the less
    >>> palatable reality.

    >>
    >> The reality, of course, that there are no legions of viruses, trojans,
    >> and spyware for Linux or Mac OSX.

    >
    > It's only good business. Windows currently has the largest market share
    > and if I wish to get my 'product' out
    > and make the most profit it only makes sense to go after that market. In
    > case you haven't heard
    > spyware/malware is all about making money.
    >
    > The Month of Apple Bugs projects showed that OSX is not a secure as Apple
    > would like us to believe.
    >
    >>> "There's no other software company that does more to secure their
    >>> code than Microsoft,"

    >>
    >> He's right, there is not other company that does more to TRY to secure
    >> their poor, hopless product.
    >>
    >>> Mr Maiffret says. "It's weird to me that a lot of
    >>> people think there should be this thing that we reach at some point
    >>> where the operating system is impenetrable... I don't think that is
    >>> ever going to happen."

    >>
    >> For Windos anyways. Today, right now (even with your so-called script
    >> running around all over the internet assaulting poor unsuspecting Linux)
    >> I feel much safer and tranquil in my computing environment just because
    >> I'm using Linux.

    >
    > Good for you. You are of course delusional because as Mr Maiffret says and
    > pretty much any secure
    > expert would agree no system is entirely secure.
    >
    >>> Source
    >>>

    >> http://www.smh.com.au/news/security/vista-still-vulnerable/2007/02/26/117
    >> 2338546822.html
    >>>
    >>> No OS is totally secure and it's level of security changes from patch
    >>> to patch. If your OS is not getting patched it's likely very insecure.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Speaking in relative terms, compared to windos, Linux really is totally
    >> secure. Of course there will be threats for all systems, but the level
    >> of vulnerability of the windos platform is just too laughable.
    >>
    >> For as long there are no real threats for Linux, to the point of causing
    >> irreparable damage to the system, it will always be "totally" secure
    >> when compared to the risks associated with windos.

    >
    > As I said above nothing is '"totally" secure. It's also very difficult to
    > compare the OS's. There are multiple
    > versions of Windows and we won't even get into the numerous *nix distros.
    > As I have said before it only
    > takes one unpatched critical flaw regardless of OS to make it totally
    > insecure.
    >
    >>>>> Again it only takes on hole
    >>>>> to sink a ship.
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, it takes a hole the size of a dime to sink windos.
    >>>
    >>> It's irrelevant what the 'size' is. A critical hole is just that. This
    >>> is why ultimately how well you maintain your system as well as your
    >>> computer practices that will ultimately determine your security.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You are right only to a certian extent: A virus or some other parasite
    >> can bring your entire computer to a halt. This really happens to people.
    >> Even a little VB script can ruin anyone's day, and there are thousands
    >> of such holes in windos.

    >
    > If this was truly the case no one would be using Windows as it would be
    > unusable. The reality is that a
    > properly maintained Windows system is safe and reliable.
    >
    >>> A well patched OS trumps a poorly patched one when it comes to security
    >>> (regardless of the OS).

    >>
    >> Not true. A marginally patched Linux box will trump a fully patched
    >> windos box.

    >
    > ROTFL
    >
    > A critical flaw left unpatched is going to get you into trouble in short
    > order regardless of the OS.
    >
    >>> If you are not maintaining your OS you ARE
    >>> vulnerable regardless of the OS.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Windos requires unreasonable maintenance, as I said before, it forces
    >> the user into an unholy loop of third-party solutions and absurd
    >> patching cycles.

    >
    > That's a subjective view and I would disagree. Patching is a fact of life
    > in our current, hostile, environment.
    > If you wish to remain safe on the Internet you need to stay on top of the
    > latest vulnerabilities and address
    > them.


    *********************
    My experience showed me that no matter what protection software is
    protecting your machine, anything can happen, and this is not due to lack of
    diligence by many users:
    My former Gateway computer crashed, died and couldn't be revived,
    because of a file that bypassed the Norton Antivirus software, installed by
    Earthlink. I went straight to the top, and bitched about the problem
    because it wasn't an error due to my opening an e-mail....I had a spam
    blocker set to the highest. I was vigilant to the point of obsession, not
    allowing any spam into my inbox.
    Well, if you'll pardon this venting, I noticed a "spoof @paypal.com"
    entry which never could have gotten into the inbox, having deleted all of
    those bogus domain spam mail, on a weekly basis. I never touched the
    email....just deleted it...and Boom! the Norton window appears and tells me
    verbatim, " this *file* got in through the back door!"....There was nothing
    I could do, and I went nuts. The company VIP gave me a year's internet
    service for the trouble this caused, and I have been leery of any e-mail
    that I receive since. I got a Dell and am using McAfee Security suite,
    which seems pretty good. Only problem is that I use the computer for hours
    a day and have been learning much on my own.
    If any gurus know the technology re: routers, and uTorrent type
    applications, I'd appreciate some feedback. Hoping to catch "a short bit
    with HST before he blew his brains out", I had to first download the Torrent
    file. download a PFConfig.exe to setup a router download. Then given the
    option to choose a free version of Network Magic's setup download, had to
    configure the port, etc. All I want to know is if I will have trouble with
    my internet and firewall settings, having had to grant access to the film
    application, and go through all these steps since 2:00am? Will I be able to
    remove these files if necessary, without changing anything in my connections
    folder? It appears my mistake, because from what I gather, this is
    primarily a network system......and the only computer in the house is the
    one I'm typing on....Any comments?
    Annette
    **********************
     
    Annette, Mar 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Annette wrote:

    >
    > "Fuzzy Logic" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns98E66CD2F937Cbobarcabca@199.185.223.74...
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:hGuFh.109296$:
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Au79 <> wrote in news:3zRDh.14524$:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Au79 <> wrote in
    >>>>>> news:3HuDh.190583$:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> [edited for brevity]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice
    >>>>>>>>>> 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should be able to open
    >>>>>>>>>> without any problems.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email;
    >>>>>>>>> however, you can just say plainly and publicly state what the
    >>>>>>>>> attachment is all about and if it is a potential threat to my
    >>>>>>>>> system (which of course it will not be).
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
    >>>>>>>> and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
    >>>>>>>> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD
    >>>>>>> that you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a
    >>>>>>> charlattan since this has only been known to work for windos. If you
    >>>>>>> had any knowledge at all about the reality of such thing, you would
    >>>>>>> have obliged and disclosed your attachment.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It's hardly a WMD. A simple script will suffice. In any case your
    >>>>>> lack of confidence has been noted.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I will not be spammed just because some morron thinks he can disable a
    >>>>> linux machine with a simple script; This really displays your sheer
    >>>>> ignorance on how Unix OS's work in general.
    >>>>
    >>>> Use a disposable address. They are easy to get. FWIW I have a fair bit
    >>>> of *nix experience.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I don't know how you can attempt to define "fair bit" when you argue,
    >>> contrary to overwhelming evidence, that windos is as secure or more
    >>> secure than Unix.
    >>>
    >>> I would certainly believe that anyone with a passing knowledge of both
    >>> architectures could plainly see the obvious differences that put Unix
    >>> above windos for security and reliability.

    >>
    >> A systems security is a moving target as new vulnerbalities are found and
    >> fixed. What can be totally secure
    >> one day quickly becomes at risk when a new vulnerability is found. This
    >> is true regardless of the OS.
    >>
    >> My real world experience is that I have never had a Windows box
    >> compromised. I will certainly agree that
    >> older incarnations of Windows were less than reliable but have come a
    >> long way.
    >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb
    >>>>>>>>>>>> things and in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do
    >>>>>>>>>>>> dumb things because they believe the system will protect them.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Do a search on "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Here is another article:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>

    http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved
    >>>>>>>> safety measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user
    >>>>>>>> feeling more confident and therefore being less cautious.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to
    >>>>>>> greater number of fatalities or accidents.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is a hypothesis but has been shown in many cases to hold true. Of
    >>>>>> course it may not apply under all circumstances.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Shown by whom? And in what cases? I don't see how you intend to
    >>>>> support such bullshit with verifiable facts.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is one reference listed above to Purdue University. A simple
    >>>> Google search for "Offset Hypothesis" will find you many more.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> A simple Google search for "Offset Hypothesis" simply regurgitated what
    >>> you have been proposing all along. However, this nonsense simply does
    >>> not translate into any applicable form for computing platforms.
    >>>
    >>> You argue that a rock-solid and secure system, such as Linux, will
    >>> inevitably lead to users being more careless about maintaining their
    >>> systems, while the frailty of windos will force users to always stay on
    >>> their toes- or else pay the consequences.
    >>>
    >>> This sheer silliness.

    >>
    >> You put words in my mouth. I simply said that it has been shown on more
    >> than one occaision that
    >> improvements in safety don't necessarily result in real world benefits as
    >> users tend to be less careful
    >> believing that these improvements will protect them.
    >>
    >>>>>>> Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
    >>>>>>> whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it
    >>>>>>> is the final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on
    >>>>>>> top of having to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which
    >>>>>>> will invariably break something else in the system.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is no such thing as a final patch. Often additional problems
    >>>>>> are found later in the same component.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Post proof.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here are two patches for the SuSE Kernel released within 3 months of
    >>>> each other:
    >>>
    >>> Two patches in three months... mhhh... I wonder how it compares with
    >>> microsoft's patching cycles.
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/127226/170/
    >>>> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/126321/170/
    >>>>
    >>>> There are numerous others involving the same components.
    >>>>
    >>> There is no comparison if you are trying to present Linux as being equal
    >>> to windos when it comes to vulnerabilities, patching, and the quality of
    >>> the fix.
    >>>
    >> > MS has spent millions trying to stave off vulnerabilities and exposures
    >>> in their systems. Their patching program, by sheer volume and
    >>> re-patching frequencies, underlines the shoddiness of their OS.

    >>
    >> 15 SuSe security patches in January vs 12 for Microsoft:
    >>
    >> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/blogcategory/100/112
    >>
    >>>>>> Yes *nix patches generally arrive
    >>>>>> sooner than MS patches but workarounds are generally available
    >>>>>> immediatly.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And that's the world of windos: Inevitable and continuous cycles of
    >>>>> patching and 'working around'.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is a fact of life for ALL modern software.
    >>>>
    >>> But not ALL modern software is equal. Linux is an engineering success by
    >>> the academics and programmers that form the OSS community; in contrast,
    >>> windos is a proprietary monstrosity that fails to meet the criteria of
    >>> good design, proven by the endless vulnerabilities that keep cropping
    >>> up.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the
    >>>>>>> safest choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent
    >>>>>>> level of design integrity.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> By the fact that windos remains to this day the least secure and least
    >>>>> reliable of all available operating systems.
    >>>>
    >>>> As you would say "Post proof"
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Read my posts. I have posted numerous articles showcasing the frailty of
    >>> a system touted to be the "safest" yet.
    >>>
    >>>> Here is a recent article quoting a security expert from eEye on
    >>>> Microsoft and Vista security:
    >>>>
    >>>> But Mr Maiffret does not blame the software giant for the mismatch
    >>>> between the market's expectations about Vista's security and the less
    >>>> palatable reality.
    >>>
    >>> The reality, of course, that there are no legions of viruses, trojans,
    >>> and spyware for Linux or Mac OSX.

    >>
    >> It's only good business. Windows currently has the largest market share
    >> and if I wish to get my 'product' out
    >> and make the most profit it only makes sense to go after that market. In
    >> case you haven't heard
    >> spyware/malware is all about making money.
    >>
    >> The Month of Apple Bugs projects showed that OSX is not a secure as Apple
    >> would like us to believe.
    >>
    >>>> "There's no other software company that does more to secure their
    >>>> code than Microsoft,"
    >>>
    >>> He's right, there is not other company that does more to TRY to secure
    >>> their poor, hopless product.
    >>>
    >>>> Mr Maiffret says. "It's weird to me that a lot of
    >>>> people think there should be this thing that we reach at some point
    >>>> where the operating system is impenetrable... I don't think that is
    >>>> ever going to happen."
    >>>
    >>> For Windos anyways. Today, right now (even with your so-called script
    >>> running around all over the internet assaulting poor unsuspecting Linux)
    >>> I feel much safer and tranquil in my computing environment just because
    >>> I'm using Linux.

    >>
    >> Good for you. You are of course delusional because as Mr Maiffret says
    >> and pretty much any secure
    >> expert would agree no system is entirely secure.
    >>
    >>>> Source
    >>>>
    >>>

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/security/vista-still-vulnerable/2007/02/26/117
    >>> 2338546822.html
    >>>>
    >>>> No OS is totally secure and it's level of security changes from patch
    >>>> to patch. If your OS is not getting patched it's likely very insecure.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Speaking in relative terms, compared to windos, Linux really is totally
    >>> secure. Of course there will be threats for all systems, but the level
    >>> of vulnerability of the windos platform is just too laughable.
    >>>
    >>> For as long there are no real threats for Linux, to the point of causing
    >>> irreparable damage to the system, it will always be "totally" secure
    >>> when compared to the risks associated with windos.

    >>
    >> As I said above nothing is '"totally" secure. It's also very difficult to
    >> compare the OS's. There are multiple
    >> versions of Windows and we won't even get into the numerous *nix distros.
    >> As I have said before it only
    >> takes one unpatched critical flaw regardless of OS to make it totally
    >> insecure.
    >>
    >>>>>> Again it only takes on hole
    >>>>>> to sink a ship.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Again, it takes a hole the size of a dime to sink windos.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's irrelevant what the 'size' is. A critical hole is just that. This
    >>>> is why ultimately how well you maintain your system as well as your
    >>>> computer practices that will ultimately determine your security.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You are right only to a certian extent: A virus or some other parasite
    >>> can bring your entire computer to a halt. This really happens to people.
    >>> Even a little VB script can ruin anyone's day, and there are thousands
    >>> of such holes in windos.

    >>
    >> If this was truly the case no one would be using Windows as it would be
    >> unusable. The reality is that a
    >> properly maintained Windows system is safe and reliable.
    >>
    >>>> A well patched OS trumps a poorly patched one when it comes to security
    >>>> (regardless of the OS).
    >>>
    >>> Not true. A marginally patched Linux box will trump a fully patched
    >>> windos box.

    >>
    >> ROTFL
    >>
    >> A critical flaw left unpatched is going to get you into trouble in short
    >> order regardless of the OS.
    >>
    >>>> If you are not maintaining your OS you ARE
    >>>> vulnerable regardless of the OS.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Windos requires unreasonable maintenance, as I said before, it forces
    >>> the user into an unholy loop of third-party solutions and absurd
    >>> patching cycles.

    >>
    >> That's a subjective view and I would disagree. Patching is a fact of life
    >> in our current, hostile, environment.
    >> If you wish to remain safe on the Internet you need to stay on top of the
    >> latest vulnerabilities and address
    >> them.

    >
    > *********************
    > My experience showed me that no matter what protection software is
    > protecting your machine, anything can happen, and this is not due to lack
    > of diligence by many users:
    > My former Gateway computer crashed, died and couldn't be revived,
    > because of a file that bypassed the Norton Antivirus software, installed
    > by
    > Earthlink. I went straight to the top, and bitched about the problem
    > because it wasn't an error due to my opening an e-mail....I had a spam
    > blocker set to the highest. I was vigilant to the point of obsession, not
    > allowing any spam into my inbox.
    > Well, if you'll pardon this venting, I noticed a "spoof @paypal.com"
    > entry which never could have gotten into the inbox, having deleted all of
    > those bogus domain spam mail, on a weekly basis. I never touched the
    > email....just deleted it...and Boom! the Norton window appears and tells
    > me verbatim, " this *file* got in through the back door!"....There was
    > nothing
    > I could do, and I went nuts. The company VIP gave me a year's internet
    > service for the trouble this caused, and I have been leery of any e-mail
    > that I receive since. I got a Dell and am using McAfee Security suite,
    > which seems pretty good. Only problem is that I use the computer for
    > hours a day and have been learning much on my own.
    > If any gurus know the technology re: routers, and uTorrent type
    > applications, I'd appreciate some feedback. Hoping to catch "a short bit
    > with HST before he blew his brains out", I had to first download the
    > Torrent
    > file. download a PFConfig.exe to setup a router download. Then given the
    > option to choose a free version of Network Magic's setup download, had to
    > configure the port, etc. All I want to know is if I will have trouble
    > with my internet and firewall settings, having had to grant access to the
    > film
    > application, and go through all these steps since 2:00am? Will I be able
    > to remove these files if necessary, without changing anything in my
    > connections
    > folder? It appears my mistake, because from what I gather, this is
    > primarily a network system......and the only computer in the house is the
    > one I'm typing on....Any comments?
    > Annette
    > **********************


    You can install Linux in your computer or get a Mac. Either way, you will
    never escape the windos scourge unless you change platforms.


    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Mar 3, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. NIST.org
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    1,502
  2. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    318
  3. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    358
  4. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    444
  5. Au79
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    598
    Blinky the Shark
    Aug 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page