full-disclosure - CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: bugtraq at gs2.com.br (Fabio Gomes de Souza)
Subject: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

Peter Busser escreveu:
> Hi!
> 
> 
>>Destroying the monopoly also lets the World get rid of (Anti)Virus 
>>companies, since they are protected by Microsoft Virus Support(TM).
> 
> 
> The fact that writing virusses and worms is easier and more rewarding on
> MS-Windows systems, that doesn't mean that they are impossible on free software
> systems. Free software desktops are complex beasts too and they are bound to
> be loaded with bugs too, many of them with security implications.

Read my post again. I didn't even mention that it is easier to write 
viruses for Microsoft systems. I told that vulnerabilities exploited by 
viruses are fixed faster and efficiently in free software because there 
is no concern about avoiding destruction of industries. Free software is 
not market-oriented. It's USER-oriented.

> 
> 
>>Viruses are a threat which has been intentionally neglected by Microsoft 
>>since the AntiVirus thing became a business. A BIG business. Imagine if 
>>Microsoft removed the Virus Support. Billions of dollars would stop 
>>being moved from people's pockets to the software giants. Mega companies 
>>would simply disappear from the Market. Hundreds of people would be 
>>unemployed. Given the facts, Microsoft is simply UNABLE to fix such 
>>vulnerabilities.
> 
> 
> That is not really a good argument, because most people are full of unfulfilled
> dreams. So if they have money in their pockets, then that money is going to
> roll. In other words, if it isn't spent on anti-virus stuff, then it will be
> spent on something else.

This is EXACTLY the point. People would spend their money with things 
more pleasant than MANDATORY antivirus packages. If you have an 
unfulfilled dream of buying an antivirus package, then you are insane.

It is better to spend money, for example, in a useless neon light to put 
inside the computer case than in an antivirus because you WANT to buy 
the light. You are not being forced to do that.

What I want to say here is that antivirus packages are a dependency of 
the Microsoft operating systems. And free software does not have such 
dependency.

>>Virues have never been a threat for Open Source systems, since they 
>>(viruses) use vulnerabilities that get fixed by users *regardless* of 
>>some company liking or not.

> This reminds me of the story about the three pigglets. Where Microsoft lives
> in the house made of straw. And the free software people live in the house made
> of wood... Yeah, we free software people are REALLY safe from the wolf! I mean,
> have you ever seen a wolf breaking into a house made of wood? No? See, that's
> my point, no wolf has ever done that. And therefore we're perfectly safe.

The difference is that free software will move to the brick house once 
the wolf arrives. And Microsoft will stay in the straw house, because 
otherwise the wolf-killing industry would disappear.

Regards,

F?bio Gomes de Souza