full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: 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]

Message-ID: <20030929222449.GC1748@suespammers.org>
From: rodrigob at suespammers.org (Rodrigo Barbosa)
Subject: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:39:14PM -0500, Schmehl, Paul L wrote:
> > As I said, I also think that Micro$oft is as insecure as my 8 
> > y/o daughter playing with a handgun.
> > 
> Your daughter wouldn't be insecure playing with a handgun if she had had
> proper handgun safety training.  Wouldn't the same be true of computer
> users?

Agree. But this training should start with developers and admins, don't
you think ? How good is security training for a user that runs insecure
software over a insecure network environment ?

Ok, I'm supposing you did read the rest of my previous e-mail.

My whole point is: I do think Windows is insecure, but one cannot blame
Windows alone. There are many, many server still vulnerable to CodeRed,
and that, these days, is mostly a fault of the server admin.

[]s

-- 
Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob@...spammers.org>
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030929/692d3df0/attachment.bin