On Monday 19 June 2006 05:54, jtd wrote:
some Ammo for M$ FUD. Security is not about user idiocity. It Is about a sane architecture which will require substantial (complex) user intervention to make it less secure.
My point being user idiocity can bring down any system - be it Windows or Linux. The weakest link in security are humans. They can bring down a system with their foolishness.
Really? What do you haveto do to get let say a Sarge (Kubuntu?) box rootkitable. What do you have to do to get a Win XP box to the same state. Nothing at all in the 2nd case. Secondly exploiting a vulnerability in a GNU distro requires substantial ability, whereas in the case of M$ it requires very little.
Look at my above point. I am not at all talking about how easy / difficult it is to crack into Linux or Windows. Once a box is cracked its cracked. How easy or difficult it was doesnt matter...
Actually u would be excused if they were paying you. You might have got a bonus for the abv ammo ;-). M$ could run an ad M$ is secure except for idiototic users. And since no user think he idiot security problem solveeed.
You are basically trying to convey that Linux is uncrackable even when its being used by the stupidest user. But what I am conveying is that a Windoze box _can_ be secured well in the hands of a good sysadmin. Look, these two statements have very different meanings.