On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:01:14 +0000, nightjar wrote:


"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.07.35.47.483354@tjhpropertygar bage.co.uk...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:41:45 +0000, Mike wrote:

I'm sure every other product mentioned here has ten times as many
security
holes. But with so many fewer users, and those that do often have
other security measures in place, it is not worth the idiots who write
these viruses and so on handling them.

No this isn't the case at all. There are alternative OS's around that
were designed from the ground up to be secure and consequently the
programs written for them are so much more secure.

However, it is their relative obscurity that protects them much better
than their relative security. If there were serious money to be made from
breaking them, as there is with MS products, it is unlikely that they
would fare a great deal better.

Colin Bignell

No unfortunately you are very wrong in your assumption. There have been
attempts to write viruses for *nix sysytems previously and fortunately
they come to nothing because they can carry no useful payload and more
importantly they cannot propogate. Read this article for a fuller
description of the differences http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

--
Regards

Tony Hogarty
(Take out the garbage to reply)