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
| ||
|
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists