full-disclosure - Re: Windows' future (reprise)

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]

Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 16:22:26 -0400
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
To: stuart@...erdelix.net
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Windows' future (reprise)

> My main reason for claiming that Windows is inherently insecure is
> because it's closed source.
As opposed to crowd sourcing, which some claim is inherently more
secure because more [uneducated] eyes review the source code? This is
along the lines of, 'Linux does not get viruses' argument. Give me a
break...

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM, lsi <stuart@...erdelix.net> wrote:
> Is that you, Bill?
>
> I think you misunderstand.  9 months ago, I measured the growth rate
> at 243%, using Symantec's stats.  9 months ago I posted that number
> here, together with a prediction of this year's stats.  Recently, I
> got this year's stats and compared them with that prediction.  I
> found that this prediction was 75.4% accurate.  I am now reporting
> those results back to the group.  And this is trolling how?
>
> My point is that the prediction was not wildly wrong, and so that
> leads me to wonder if anything else I said, 9 months ago, was also
> not wildly wrong.
>
> My main reason for claiming that Windows is inherently insecure is
> because it's closed source.  However it's also because of the sloppy,
> monolithic spaghetti code that Windows is made of.  If you're
> claiming Windows is in fact inherently secure, I assume this means
> you don't use AV on any of your Windows machines, and advise everyone
> you know to uninstall it?
>
> I never said migration would be free or easy.  That is why I am
> posting this data here, because I see it as a vulnerability, a very
> big vulnerability that many companies have not woken up to.  The very
> fact that migration is hard, lengthy, and expensive, means that the
> vulnerability is larger than ever.
>
> Stu
>
> On 15 May 2010 at 14:40, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
>
> From:                   "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor@...merofgod.com>
> To:                     "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-
> disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
> Date sent:              Sat, 15 May 2010 14:40:29 +0000
> Subject:                Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise)
>
>> I am constantly amazed at posts like this where you make yourself sound like some sort of statistical genius because you were "able to predict" that since last year was %243, that this year would be %243.  Wow.  Really?
>>
>> And for the record, these claims of 'inherent insecurity' in Windows are simply ignorant.  If you are still running Windows 95 that's your problem.  Do a little research before post assertions based on 10 or 20 year old issues.
>>
>> This smacks of the classic troll, where you say things like "nothing that Microsoft makes is secure and it never will be" and then go on to say how easy it is to migrate, and how it's free, with only a one off cost, and how to move off of .NET.
>>
>> Obvious "predictions," ignorant assumptions, and a total lack of any true understanding of business computing.  Yep, "troll."
>>
>> t
>>
>> [SNIP]

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/