On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:41:51 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:08:30 UTC, Tony Hogarty
wrote:

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.

What about the famous Morris worm?

Perhaps I should have said modern nix systems? 1988 is a long long time
ago!

--
Regards

Tony Hogarty
(Take out the garbage to reply)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:00:12 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

But if the MS critics have their way and many more people have Linus the
vuruses WILL be able to spread, thus Linux will be as bvulnerable as OE.

Mary it is obvious that you don't understand the differences between linux
and windows. It is nothing to do with the quantity and everything to do
with quality.

--
Regards

Tony Hogarty
(Take out the garbage to reply)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:57:54 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
strung together this:

Who's Mr Eager? I don't get such posts ...

That's because you have an aversion to people who have a different
opinion on life to you.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...

John Rumm wrote:

The simplest to get on with would be Thunderbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/


OK, sold! I've finally gone and done it - dumped OE that is - and am
posting my first message via Thunderbird.

Can't say I can see a whole lot of difference yet; but at least I no
longer see that bloody attachment icon which Mr Eager insists on including
in all his posts!


Who's Mr Eager? I don't get such posts ...

Look at any post from Bob Eager; in OE you'll see an 'attachment' icon
by all his messages, due to a bug in OE which he deliberately exploits
for reasons best known to himself

David

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


I didn't know what I'd started did I?

Sorry, it was just an irritated, pesonal, throwaway line - but I've been
very interested by the replies.

If anyone is tempted by these applications, where are they obtained, how
much do they cost, how are they installed ... etc.

The simplest to get on with would be Thunderbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/

Click the download link, run the setup program when done, and then
configure much like you would OE.

The Bat - easy to setup and use - can also do the MS Exchange integration
that usually requires Outlook:

http://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/

Forte Agent - a google will turn up loads of versions, but here is one:

http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php

Tin (not recommended for newbies) in its original versions can be found
he

http://www.tin.org/
And a windows port he
http://two-wugs.net/wintin/

Then people have to learn new skills ...

To some degree yes. In the case of Thunderbird then not many.

It does, alas many do not even read the suggestions (e.g. the recent very
sensible change to turn on the firewall in XP SP2 by default. This was
necessary simply because the majority of users did not bother to enable
it even though it was installed and ready to go).


So you're suggesting applications which don't suggest that users think
for themselves?

I am not suggesting that users don't think for themselves, but at the same
time I do not believe that this is an acceptable get out for software
writers to ship fundamentally insecure products. Now MS have started to
take these issues more seriously, some of their choices with regard to
which default options they use, have been better. However even their best
efforts with WinXP SP2 ("the best windows yet" TM MS) still fall way
short.

It is a big problem, computer security is as you say a boring, techy, and
a very complex subject. You are not going to force many people to learn
about it. Personally I don't like applications that take control away, and
make arbitrary decisions for me. However I also accept that for some,
applications of this type are the only way they will be moderately safe.

I've been using internet for a few years and have never seen a preview
pan. I've only heard about them from people who've droned on boringly (!)
about how wonderful they are. I've never a) understood why or b) been
tempted to try to discover how to do it. But all these folk have not been
OE users, they've been telling me about preview panes as one of the
refinements of their own systems.

The preview pane is by default "on" in OE and Outlook - it is the standard
UI.

Well it isn't, and never has been - in my experience. Honestly.

(Look at the View | Layout... menu option).

I did. It's all grey.

Many people like it
because it makes reading emails/news quick and easy - click on the message
title, and the message is displayed.

The weakness is that if you have a message that is obviously spam / dodgy,
there is no easy way to select it for deletion without it also being
previewed.

But even then you don't have to open a mail ... and if it isn't shown in a
preview pane surely you do have to open it if you want to know what's in it?

puzzled


Yes. Fortunately the companies I deal with on-line are extremely security
aware. I've reported several spoofs. I think this is important but it's
surprising how may people complain about them yet do nothing.

Alas it is not always that simple. Try this quiz:-

http://survey.mailfrontier.com/survey/quiztest.html

Oh come on! You're not expecting me to open a url without knowing what it is
after everything you've said, are you ? :-)

Not that I would anyway!

That's the key word. Computer users should be educated to safeguard their
pcs. But they won't. You can't expect the software producers to give 100%
protection, users have a responsibility.

I agree. Software producers can't assume full responsibility, although you
may feel they do have some responsibility to at least release software
that is not a walking security exploit.

I'm not sure that even you can be sure about which software is 'safe'.
Somewhere we have to trust and no, I don't know how to base that trust
except by repute and experience.


Compare the situation with car drivers. They are, in theory, taught the
legal and safe way to drive. Very many think they know better and that
they don't need to follow the guidelines. If they have an accident the
car manufacturers can't be blamed.

There is difference here. You are required by law to pass a test and
obtain certification before your drive. You are also required to carry
insurance to protect third parties, and you are also required to have your
vehicle periodically inspected (after three years) to verify it is not
dangerous.

Those are the requirements. Many drivers don't accord with those
requirements. That was my point.

The same can not be said for being charmed by the PC world salesman who
will explain how you can be "on the internet in ten minutes" with "no
training or previous experience".

I'm not easily charmed :-)

If people are gullible on their own head be it. And I know you're going to
say that they have a responsibility to protect others but that's like saying
that all children should have the MMR immunisation to protect others who
could protect themselves. It's arguable that people must take responsibility
for their own lives.

There's a debate atthe moment about a costly yet compulsory ID card - to
protect others. Hmm.

Sorry, I'm drifting. Mustn't let that happen on a thread!

4) Trojan diallers,

....

I've heard of this and while I'm not smug I'm pleased to have broadband.
But that won't be safe forever. Nothing is.

You are safer in that respect, especially if your computers modem (if it
has one) is not connected to the phone line. Chances are you would notice
the reduction in performance if you suddenly got thrown back to dial up

I know I would, after working with a son's. He's desperate for broadband but
it's unlkely to happen. Don't get me started on that!


Out of interest, how did you learn about these issues? How do you select
what software you are going to run to scan for spyware etc?

Two sons, who workd independently with computer systems (one for the civil
service, one with the RAF), advised me. I now sit back and wait for you to
damn such naive public services :-)


My email system is not PC compatible, and does not run PC software, and
hence by extension PC targeted malware. This alone would not be good
security (i.e. it is just an example of "security by obscurity") but as a
final line of defence it helps.

But my e-mail system IS pc compatible - I assume, since it runs on a pc -
and I have no intention of mending it until it's broke, by which time I
could be dead.

Every customer I go to see, who is complaining that their computer is
running slowly or misbehaving in some other way, has a machine loaded
with spyware and trojans that have arrived as a result of a lack of
attention to detail on their part, coupled with use of IE/OE. It is
sometimes difficult to get their attention, but you can change their
software!


Can't you educate them? Or is it in your interest to change their
software?

Education, depends on the willingness of the customer to a large extent.
Some take the issues seriously and are keen to do what they can. Those are
easy. Some can't resist clicking on every link in every interesting
sounding email they receive! Most are somewhere in the middle ground.

An enthusiastic user would want to know how to usehis pc to the best
extent - but of course that brings us round to your argument of having a
different system to protect others ...


We publish a few tips on our web site that can help:

http://www.internode.co.uk/qna_internet.htm

I'll save it and might have a look.

We also try to guide people toward using a router for broadband access:

Already have one.


You also have to be aware that an unpatched Win2K / XP system can get
compromised just being connected to the internet with no firewall. This
is irrespective of any software that runs on top for email/web access.


That's what firewalls are for ...

But how so you download one safely on a Win2K system?

Or even in Basildon.

shivers don't use that word.... used to work there once!

LOL!

I knew I'd hit home with someone :-)))))))))

I went there once.

Thanks for your patience,

Mary

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...

John Rumm wrote:

The simplest to get on with would be Thunderbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/


OK, sold! I've finally gone and done it - dumped OE that is - and am
posting my first message via Thunderbird.

Can't say I can see a whole lot of difference yet; but at least I no
longer see that bloody attachment icon which Mr Eager insists on
including in all his posts!


Who's Mr Eager? I don't get such posts ...

Look at any post from Bob Eager; in OE you'll see an 'attachment' icon by
all his messages, due to a bug in OE which he deliberately exploits for
reasons best known to himself

Oh, the name sounds a bit familiar with the Bob but I can't say I've noticed
the attachment. If there is one his posts won't have been opened. I never
open any post with an attachment and only mails which I'm expecting.

Thanks for the info.

Mary

David

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

snip

It's not *just* the variation in Linux installations, not *just* that
few
people run as root, not *just* that nobody has yet been stupid enough to
write a mail client like Outlook.

Using words like 'stupid' is offensive and diminishes your credibility.


Not it is not and no it does not.

"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.22.11.41.882750@tjhpropertygar bage.co.uk...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:00:12 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

But if the MS critics have their way and many more people have Linus the
vuruses WILL be able to spread, thus Linux will be as vulnerable as OE.

Mary it is obvious that you don't understand the differences between linux
and windows.

That's true. Nobody's explained it.


It is nothing to do with the quantity and everything to do
with quality.

That doesn't explain it!

Mary

Tony Hogarty wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:00:12 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

But if the MS critics have their way and many more people have Linus
the vuruses WILL be able to spread, thus Linux will be as
bvulnerable as OE.

Mary it is obvious that you don't understand the differences between
linux and windows. It is nothing to do with the quantity and
everything to do with quality.

....until the people who are causing the problems while running Windows move
over to Linux, and start running unpatched Linux boxes as root!

In message , John
Rumm writes
I am sure you are diligent enough (and sufficiently aware of the
issues) to keep your computer patched up to date, run current anti
virus and firewall software/hardware, keep your preview pane turned
off, and most importantly be selective as to what emails you open
rather than delete.


On a more general point, I will often make a recommendation to people
to use an alternative tool, because of the damage that OE can do to
everyone else, even people who do not use it.

And can I suggest that people at least take a look at

http://mcs.open.ac.uk/safecomputing


--
geoff

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:22:28 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:


"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.22.11.41.882750@tjhpropertygar bage.co.uk...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:00:12 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

But if the MS critics have their way and many more people have Linus
the vuruses WILL be able to spread, thus Linux will be as vulnerable as
OE.

Mary it is obvious that you don't understand the differences between
linux and windows.

That's true. Nobody's explained it.


It is nothing to do with the quantity and everything to do
with quality.

That doesn't explain it!

Mary



I'd love to have the time to teach you but unfortunately I'm up to my eyes
at the moment writing a dissertation. However as they say Google is your
friend just try something like 'linux versus microsoft security' and I'm
sure that will bring up enough to keep you going for a few lifetimes.
Have fun.

--
Regards

Tony Hogarty
(Take out the garbage to reply)

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
snip

Look at any post from Bob Eager; in OE you'll see an 'attachment' icon
by all his messages, due to a bug in OE which he deliberately exploits
for reasons best known to himself


Rather obvious reason if you look at what he 'calls' the non existent
attachment !..

IIRC the following will show up as one...

begin this attachment doesn't exist !

"Mary Fisher" wrote in
et:



... until other systems are used by more people.

Mary

Trouble is, windoze is the only os available to those whose brain is
smaller than all outdoors and don't speak klingon.

Until that changes mortals will have to use windoze and try to protect
themselves; Antivirus, firewall, spyware and adware detector, email
protection (and not using OE or IE)

mike

"raden" wrote in message
...

On a more general point, I will often make a recommendation to people to
use an alternative tool, because of the damage that OE can do to everyone
else, even people who do not use it.

And can I suggest that people at least take a look at

http://mcs.open.ac.uk/safecomputing

How do I know that it's safe to open this?

I'm serious, not being flippant.

Mary


--
geoff

"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.22.31.31.186559@tjhpropertygar bage.co.uk...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:22:28 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:


"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.22.11.41.882750@tjhpropertygar bage.co.uk...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:00:12 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

But if the MS critics have their way and many more people have Linus
the vuruses WILL be able to spread, thus Linux will be as vulnerable as
OE.

Mary it is obvious that you don't understand the differences between
linux and windows.

That's true. Nobody's explained it.


It is nothing to do with the quantity and everything to do
with quality.

That doesn't explain it!

Mary



I'd love to have the time to teach you but unfortunately I'm up to my eyes
at the moment writing a dissertation. However as they say Google is your
friend just try something like 'linux versus microsoft security' and I'm
sure that will bring up enough to keep you going for a few lifetimes.
Have fun.

WWWWWAaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:-)

I'll look another time, I'm supposed to be preparing for going to Wales for
Christmas! No computer there ...

Saved to folder though ... as is this whole thread.

Mary

--
Regards

Tony Hogarty
(Take out the garbage to reply)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:21:31 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
strung together this:

Oh, the name sounds a bit familiar with the Bob but I can't say I've noticed
the attachment. If there is one his posts won't have been opened. I never
open any post with an attachment and only mails which I'm expecting.

Can't be the same Bob then. Bob Eagers posts don't have attachments.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Lobster wrote:

OK, sold! I've finally gone and done it - dumped OE that is - and am
posting my first message via Thunderbird.

Can't say I can see a whole lot of difference yet; but at least I no

Well that was kind of my point... it should seem pretty much the same.

Turn on the automatic junk mail detection for email, and you will be
supprised how effective it can be as well.

longer see that bloody attachment icon which Mr Eager insists on
including in all his posts!

Ah, where outlook seems to think that any line starting with the word
"begin" is an attachment?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:04:09 UTC, Tony Hogarty
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:41:51 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:08:30 UTC, Tony Hogarty
wrote:

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.

What about the famous Morris worm?

Perhaps I should have said modern nix systems? 1988 is a long long time
ago!

The point is, I guess, that the Morris worm just exploited a bug in a
user mode (but partially privileged) program, i.e. sendmail. Such a bug
could still occur today.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:11:43 UTC, Lurch
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:57:54 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
strung together this:

Who's Mr Eager? I don't get such posts ...

That's because you have an aversion to people who have a different
opinion on life to you.

That's why she's ignoring me!
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:37:14 +0000, mike ring wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote in
et:



... until other systems are used by more people.

Mary

Trouble is, windoze is the only os available to those whose brain is
smaller than all outdoors and don't speak klingon.

Until that changes mortals will have to use windoze and try to protect
themselves; Antivirus, firewall, spyware and adware detector, email
protection (and not using OE or IE)

mike

Modern linux distributions are not as daunting as they used to be.
However as you say they do require more knowledge to install than windows
but once installed they are easy to use. My wife happily uses linux and
finds it very similar to windows in day to day usage. Not that I'm
implying she's got a brain smaller than all outdoors of course ... time to
quit digging this hole whilst it's not too deap I think.

--
Regards

Tony Hogarty
(Take out the garbage to reply)

"Lurch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:21:31 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
strung together this:

Oh, the name sounds a bit familiar with the Bob but I can't say I've
noticed
the attachment. If there is one his posts won't have been opened. I never
open any post with an attachment and only mails which I'm expecting.

Can't be the same Bob then. Bob Eagers posts don't have attachments.


Don't confuse the poor lass anymore, she is confused enough already !...
Shame on you 'lurch'. :~)

Mary Fisher wrote:

... until other systems are used by more people.

This is an often stated fallacy. The majority of web servers are non
Windows, yet most hacked web servers are Windows. It's just easier.

--
Grunff

"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message

Modern linux distributions are not as daunting as they used to be.
However as you say they do require more knowledge to install than windows
but once installed they are easy to use. My wife happily uses linux and
finds it very similar to windows in day to day usage. Not that I'm
implying she's got a brain smaller than all outdoors of course ... time to
quit digging this hole whilst it's not too deap I think.

LOL!

Mary
ps - can she spell?

Mary Fisher wrote:

"raden" wrote in message

And can I suggest that people at least take a look at

http://mcs.open.ac.uk/safecomputing


How do I know that it's safe to open this?

I'm serious, not being flippant.

Good question!

In this case the answer is "because you trust the person giving the
advice".

However normally it would be because you were using a web browser
unlikely to be vulnerable to web based exploits, your virus scanner will
be running, it's signature files up to date. So to your firewall. You
will have installed the Sun JVM as a replacement for the Microsoft one
and made it the default.

However if you are visiting a site you are unsure about you will have
turned off both Java and Javascript, at least initially.

If you still have doubts, type the URL into google and see if there are
discussions raging about it.

Don't be an early adopter, wait for a couple of others to post responses
to what they have read. If they are not complaining about an itchy
feeling in their bin directory, chances are you will be ok as well!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:04:14 +0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

ps - can she spell?

Oh yes can she ever unlike me as you've probably noticed!

--
Regards

Tony Hogarty
(Take out the garbage to reply)

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:41c2163e$0$78022$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-
http://mcs.open.ac.uk/safecomputing


How do I know that it's safe to open this?

I'm serious, not being flippant.

Good question!

In this case the answer is "because you trust the person giving the
advice".

Hmm. I might have been groomed just for this ...

However normally it would be because you were using a web browser unlikely
to be vulnerable to web based exploits, your virus scanner will be
running, it's signature files up to date.

I assume it is.

So to your firewall. You will have installed the Sun JVM as a replacement
for the Microsoft one and made it the default.

I don't use the MS one.


If you still have doubts, type the URL into google and see if there are
discussions raging about it.

That's a good idea, actually, thanks!

Don't be an early adopter, wait for a couple of others to post responses
to what they have read. If they are not complaining about an itchy feeling
in their bin directory, chances are you will be ok as well!

:-)

I'm going to bed. I'll look tomorrow!

Mary

On 16 Dec 2004 22:51:26 GMT, "Bob Eager" strung
together this:

That's why she's ignoring me!

And me too I think, I just reply on the off chance one slips through!
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:55:55 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
strung together this:

Don't confuse the poor lass anymore, she is confused enough already !...
Shame on you 'lurch'. :~)

I just reply for the sake of it. I think I was killfiled a long time
ago!
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"raden" wrote in message
...

On a more general point, I will often make a recommendation to people to
use an alternative tool, because of the damage that OE can do to everyone
else, even people who do not use it.

And can I suggest that people at least take a look at

http://mcs.open.ac.uk/safecomputing

How do I know that it's safe to open this?

I'm serious, not being flippant.

Because I posted the URL, that's why


--
geoff

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:08:30 UTC, Tony Hogarty
wrote:

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.

What about the famous Morris worm?

Does it have bells on ?

--
geoff

Grunff wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:

... until other systems are used by more people.

This is an often stated fallacy. The majority of web servers are non
Windows, yet most hacked web servers are Windows. It's just easier.

How many of those non-Windows web servers are on small hobbyist machines
compared to the fewer Windows servers running high-profile sites that are
more worth hacking?

I know that Apache is the most common webserver 'out there', but I read some
time ago (sorry, no links available) that very few Fortune 500 companies use
it, instead going with Windows.

Who is going to hack into some random blogger's website when they can deface
a major corporation's website?

John.

"Tony Hogarty" wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.21.17.10.607754@tjhpropertygar bage.co.uk...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:15:07 +0000, Mike wrote:

Oh come on, take off the rose tinted specticles. There are numerous
holes
in Unix which every university comp grad knows about. The problem is
unless you can get access to the systems it isn't worth the hassle of
writing a virus or whatever for them.

But isn't that rather the point?

Doesn't the next generation PlayStation run Linux ? If so then there is a
very worthwhile user base to write viruses for.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
snip

Remember that MS do not dominate in the server space. One of the most
common OSs about must be IOS from Cisco. As deployed in critical
internet routers and gateways the world over. Highly attractive (and
profitable) target for the black hat community,

How is it attractive ? They might bring down the Internet but where's
the
profit line ?

I really don't think you understand how and why most viruses or DoS
attacks
take place....

Profit is not just about money, credibility amongst other virus writers
etc
is also a profitable reason to launch a virus or DoS attack for those
inclined in these activates.

There are a few 'geeks' but nowadays most of this work eminates from the
pornography or 'protection' industries. CoolWebSearch is a prime example -
they want you to pay to remove it from your computer.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:28:51 UTC, (Huge) wrote:

Untrue. Windows has fundamental problems, both in design and
implementation,
with separation of user space from system space.

True of Win 9x and ME.

But NT, 2000 and XP are fundamentally different and do separate those
spaces.

Glad to see somebody else has realised this. Not that it provides total
protection but at least it's a start.

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...

John Rumm wrote:

The simplest to get on with would be Thunderbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/


OK, sold! I've finally gone and done it - dumped OE that is - and am
posting my first message via Thunderbird.

Can't say I can see a whole lot of difference yet; but at least I no
longer see that bloody attachment icon which Mr Eager insists on
including
in all his posts!


Who's Mr Eager? I don't get such posts ...

Look at any post from Bob Eager; in OE you'll see an 'attachment' icon
by all his messages, due to a bug in OE which he deliberately exploits
for reasons best known to himself

But Outlook Express flags it as potentially hostile and won't let you open
it unless you do the forwarding trick.

"mike ring" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in
et:



... until other systems are used by more people.

Mary

Trouble is, windoze is the only os available to those whose brain is
smaller than all outdoors and don't speak klingon.

Now, now. Apple Macs are designed for those sort of people.

JM wrote:

How many of those non-Windows web servers are on small hobbyist machines
compared to the fewer Windows servers running high-profile sites that are
more worth hacking?

I know that Apache is the most common webserver 'out there', but I read some
time ago (sorry, no links available) that very few Fortune 500 companies use
it, instead going with Windows.

Who is going to hack into some random blogger's website when they can deface
a major corporation's website?


This is another common misconception among the "I love MS" brigade. Very
few enterprise level applications run on IIS. Pick a bank, any bank, and
check what their online banking app is running on. It'll be *nix or Solaris.


--
Grunff

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:17:31 UTC, "Mike" wrote:

Untrue. Windows has fundamental problems, both in design and
implementation,
with separation of user space from system space.

True of Win 9x and ME.

But NT, 2000 and XP are fundamentally different and do separate those
spaces.

Glad to see somebody else has realised this. Not that it provides total
protection but at least it's a start.

It's my job to realise it! I teach operating system theory...!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...
....
But if the MS critics have their way and many more people have Linus the
vuruses WILL be able to spread, thus Linux will be as bvulnerable as
OE....

Not really. The vast majority of malware today has been written by the porn
industry, to make money. Linux would have to virtually replace Windows for
it to be worth their while to spend the time and money needed to do the same
to Linux. The Linux supporters think that is not possible, but I think they
greatly underestmiate the power of greed, backed by one of the world's
largest industries. While Linux is well enough written to shrug off the
efforts of a few isolated virus writers, it has never been subjected to the
sort of concerted attack it would receive were it the dominant system.
However, neither is it likely to become sufficiently widespread for it to be
worth that sort of attack. It will, therefore, continue to be relatively
secure.

Colin Bignell

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

to do so. The relativly better security probably does protect it from the
occasional destructive geek. However, I would need a lot more convincing
that it could withstand the sort of highly organised, well funded attacks
that MS products are subjected to.

I would be very supprised if the systems that build the core of the
internet backbone, coupled with those that run the highest profile sites
are not subjected to the most deliberate attacks going.

If you were a black hat looking to do mischief, what would be a bigger
prize.... A big pile of Windows boxes? or eBay, the BBC News site, and
Telehouse in docklands?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/