full-disclosure - IE Web Browser: "Sitting Duck"

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: eballen1 at qwest.net (Bruce Ediger)
Subject: IE Web Browser: "Sitting Duck"

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, "joe" wrote:

> because the *nixs are picking up a lot of the people who were previously
> clueless in Windows and they aren't learning much going to *nix. They just
> think it is better and more secure because they know even less about it than
> they did about Windows.

At least in practice the unix-a-likes demonstrate more security than
the flavors of Windows, don't they?

I mean, where's the linux chain mailer to equal SirCam?

Where are the multiple linux worms to equal Code Red, Nimda, Deloder,
Witty, SQL Spida, Slammer, Blaster, MyDoom, etc etc etc?

Even if the installed bases are taken into account, Linux should suffer
from one or two persistent worms like Code Red (I got hits from Code Red
for more than two years after it was released), close to 100 file
viruses, and a few chain mailers.

Linux doesn't.  Sure, Staog and Bliss made appearances, Scalper and Slapper
made the rounds and a whole raft of mass-mailers.......

Well, Staog, Bliss, Scalper and Slapper happened.

The evidence seems to suggest that Linux is more secure than Windows,
particularly in whatever ways cause susceptibility to mass-mailers.

Can you propose a test of the install-based theory?  If not, I wish
you wouldn't use it, it's little more than special pleading for the
use of Microsoft products.