daniel.carrera at zmsl.com
Sat Apr 29 00:34:19 UTC 2006
Stephen R Laniel wrote:
>>I'm certainly a big fan of sudo. But what it does is protect the OS
>>itself, the system files. I don't want to diminish sudo, but it doesn't
>>protect your data files.
> That's a rather narrow conception of the ways that people
> can access or destroy your data files.
It is? Since any program you run has read/write access to your data
files anyways, sudo offers no protection that I can see.
> A great many security
> problems in Windows occur because a vulnerability allows
> arbitrary code to run with the privileges of the current
I'd be interested to hear an example. Honestly. This is useful
information. How does Windows' weak separation of priviledge make it
more vulnerable to viruses? I can guess that it should, but I can't
actually suggest a typical use case where this Windows bug makes it
easier to lose your data. As far as I can see all it does is create more
hassle because you have to re-install Windows.
> Unless you're running bind or Apache under chroot,
Apache is a web server. This is very far from the use case I presented.
I'm talking about viruses and malware for a desktop user. I know why
Linux is more secure on a server, and on a multi-user environment. I'm
asking about "regular users".
> 2) Ordinary users. These people probably don't care much
> about security, or else they would have bailed on Windows
> long ago.
How about ordinary users who do care about security and are wanting to
know why it is that Linux is more secure than Windows? They'll probably
say "I hear that Linux isn't any better, but it's just less targeted".
I'd like to tell them that it actually is better independently of market
Tell me, do *you* think that Linux is less inherently less vulnerable to
viruses than Windows? Why?
/\/_/ ...and starting today, all passwords must contain
\/_/ letters, numbers, doodles, sign language and
/ squirrel noises.
More information about the ubuntu-users