Re: OT: anti-malware progs ineffective
From: Robert Monsen (rcsurname_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/31/05
- Previous message: Ken Smith: "Re: anti-malware progs ineffective"
- In reply to: JeffM: "Re: OT: anti-malware progs ineffective"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:20:02 -0800
JeffM wrote:
>>Even linux, with it's macrokernel and loaded dlls
>>Robert Monsen
>>
>
> *n?x does not have DLLs.
> There is, however, a similar concept called a daemon.
>
ah, apparently have a bit to learn about linux. Shared libraries are
dlls by a different name. Daemons are independent processes, that can
load shared libraries if they so choose. The concepts, however, are
almost, but not quite completely dissimilar.
>
>
>>that run in the kernel, is prone to these attacks,
>>although it's relative obscurity up till now has protected it
>>
>
> Oh, god.
> Not the old "Popularity breeds vulnerability* garbage again.
>
It's obvious. One works to get the biggest payoff. That's why
applications and support for new hardware come out first for windows,
and then grudgingly are ported to mac os, and then finally, to linux.
This is common sense.
> One more time
> for those who have missed the debunking of this old wives' tale:
>
> The Apache Web Server currently runs 68% of all web servers;
> Microsoft Internet Information Server is currently at 21%.
> Apache has outstriped M$ in market penetration since 1995.
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
> The number of exploits against IIS dwarfs those against Apache.
> Security is found in good design--not in obscurity.
>
Tell me what the number of desktop machines is in relation to the number
of server machines. Quick now. 1000 to 1? 10,000 to 1?
If you are going to bother to learn a system to hack it, why not go for
one that is on 100 or 1000 times more desktops, and has a reputation for
terrible security as well?
Another argument for this particular point is the lack of viruses on the
mac. The mac has had from 5 to 15% of the US market for the last 20
years. I know for a fact that the macintosh, at least up to OS9, was
incredibly easy to write viruses for, due to their crappy, non-existent
security. The resource fork scheme was horrifying from this point of
view. Any program could write any file on the system, and easily patch
themselves into any application with a couple of os calls. There was no
memory protection, even for system level data. It was freely avilable
for anybody with a bit of incentive to hack. Microsoft and netscape
wrote browsers for the mac, and the apps were microsoft apps for the
most part. Thus, the software was equally lousy as on Windows. However,
they never had 5 to 10% of the viruses, spyware, etc. Not by a long shot.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
- Previous message: Ken Smith: "Re: anti-malware progs ineffective"
- In reply to: JeffM: "Re: OT: anti-malware progs ineffective"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
