full-disclosure - Re: Knocking Microsoft

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: <5.0.0.25.2.20040227231941.03f80538@pop3.direcway.com>
From: madsaxon at direcway.com (madsaxon)
Subject: Re: Knocking Microsoft

At 07:17 PM 2/27/2004 -0500, James F. Wilkus wrote:

> > and now they try to make it secure. UNIX was made to be secure, and
>I  think people  are  doing a  disservice by  claiming  that linux  is
>something it is not, or more accurately, generalizing all UNIX's to be
>secure.

How many times must we rehash this?  NO operating system in common
use today is secure in and of itself--not *nix, not Microsoft, not
Apple, not Novell, not IBM.  Security is a function of diligent,
intelligent administration by a clueful human being, not some
life raft that inflates automatically when you install the OS.
A competent, motivated admin can secure ANY operating system.
A incompetent, lazy admin won't be able to guarantee decent
security on even the most bulletproof install.

While(1) {
     argue(Unix is {more,less} secure than {Windows,OS X,Linux});
     return 1;
}

is getting very, very tiresome.

m5x