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: eballen1 at qwest.net (Bruce Ediger)
Subject: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Rick Kingslan wrote:

> I'll not argue that the Windows operating systems are the target of the
> majority of virus', but that's typically what happens when a system is used
> by a known large group of people that might not be qualified to run a
> computer, much less secure it.

Doesn't this just constitute special pleading to use Microsoft's products?
For example, this theory is totally unfalsifiable - only Microsoft products
are in such a position.

Oh, wait.  Apache has about 2 times the market share of IIS, and I'm
still getting Code Red and Nimda hits TWO YEARS after they were released.

By contrast, I only got about 2 days worth of hits from Slapper.

> The 'bad guys' and 'bored kids' are going to target the largest base - and
> there will always be holes to compromise and exploit.  Viruses have never
> been a threat to Open Source because the target is not yet juicy enough.

Yeah, I guess you're right: Apache's 60% market share is just not "juicy"
enough.  Despite it being so much easier to write Linux shell code than
Win32 shell code.