A question on protection software

[Karl F. Larsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Colin Law wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Tony Baldwin <photodharma at gmail.com>:
>> Sandy Harris wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM, <valhalla2100 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>> ... clippage ...
>>> There's also an argument that Linux is better designed
>>> and better implemented than Windows, so more secure.
>>> I certainly believe that, but it would be fairly difficult to
>>> produce the evidence that would convince an MS
>>> employee.
>>>
>> Statistics alone should prove that point.
> 
> The statistics don't prove it one way or the other because we don't
> know how much effort is put in attempting to attack linux machines.
> Windows machines are more commonly affected than Linux ones but this
> in itself does not say anything about the intrinsic security of the OS
> unless we know the relative amounts of effort put in by those with
> evil intent.  Unless there are some other statistics available.
> 
> Colin
> 
	We know the way Hackers attack Windows and this type of attack fails
against Linux. If you pay this Hacker to attack Linux he might be
successful but the method will be a lot different.

	Against Linux you can send a user an email that attacks the computer
but the attack is limited by the passwords it needs to discover. Without
a password it can screw up your mail but that is about it.

	Now days both Windows and Linux users are getting "security updates"
that are done to make infection harder.

73 Karl


- --

	Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	Linux User
	#450462   http://counter.li.org.
        Key ID = 3951B48D

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkowIyYACgkQNuSIOjlRtI1cUgCbBcvhywCw9+25ic5f3zRejMyw
ssMAn2wnx2Ul7I1TtzCVP0HrkZEmUsHs
=7y8C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----