Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: nico@xxxxxxxxxxx (Nico Coesel)
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:27:02 GMT
Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>Bob Monsen wrote:
>
>>Well, you are right about that, but with regards to root attacks, the
>>smaller the kernel, the less likely it is for kernel bugs to allow
>>attacker code to run. That is the most likely means of attack for a
>>network worm, for example, or a file system exploit: get the kernel to
>>run the attacker's code somehow.
>
>...which is why QNX is the most bug-free and hardest to attack OS.
It is also least used. Quite a lot of software runs on it though (I
even got Samba to run on it so I could edit sources in a Windows
machine).
Still, I'm pretty sure QNX will have some security holes in it because
it is optimized for real time processes, not security.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
.
- References:
- XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Jon Yaeger
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Nico Coesel
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Nico Coesel
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Guy Macon
- XP vs Mac OS X
- Prev by Date: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Next by Date: Re: who wants to be a "recording" engineer?
- Previous by thread: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Next by thread: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
