> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Jonathan Masters wrote:
>
> > Yep. I took the same attitude with him as I did with barclays bank and
> > threatened to sue him/her for discrimating between OSs in such a manner, I
> > mean winblows is crap everyone knows, and OK, so MacOS is *better*, but since
> > that microshark "loan" of millions to Apple, I will always view Apple and
> > microshaft as being too close so I find this kind of discrimination very bad
> > for everyone. BARCLAYS HAD THE NERVE to claim that
> > LINUX IS ***LESS*** SECURE THAN WINDOWS 95/98/NT - what an utter sh*tload of
> > crap. I mean, it made me laugh and I've still gotta decide if I'm gonna pursue
> > the case with Barclays.... (I *used* to like them too).
>
> Well, let's be less knee-jerk biased about this. As far as the network
> is concerned, Win9X is nearly perfectly secure because they have an
> outgoing-only sort of network. Can one crack a Win9X box on the
> network? I doubt it -- even if one WANTS to login to it is impossible
> because it is brain dead at the network level, because it has no shells,
> and so forth. Macintoads are no better. So they're "secure" in that
> only the person logged into the console can do anything and it is
> difficult for a remote cracker to install a snooper or capture
> keystrokes or the like.
This is not has hard as you might think, I am constantly dealing with BO
or netbus infections. Windows users can often be tricked into running
things.
Or in one case NT and 95 on a lan with networking open (oops) attackers
just mounted the drives and installed 30 copies of netbus.
Improper setup on either OS will cause problems.. no reason to single us
out.
Gerhard
-- gmack@imag.net<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/