Jenesis on 17/2/2006 at 14:38
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
virusi
I've seen a few variations on the plural of 'virus' in the past, but that's a new one on me.
(It's (
http://http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virus) viruses, in any case.)
This isn't meant to sound harsh - I used to mangle the word myself - but that's probably the most misspelled word on the Internet (it ranks up there with 'lose'), and it bugs me. I'm fussy that way.
Convict on 17/2/2006 at 14:41
Either it's a typo, or Jay's using Latin (which would be incorrect).
Uncia on 17/2/2006 at 14:46
If nothing else, virusi = viruses in some Slavic languages.
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 14:52
Quote Posted by Convict
Either it's a typo, or Jay's attempt at Latin (and if it is then it seems Jay never actually did Latin).
It was a deliberate bastardisation. I actually did (and promptly forgot) Latin.
Uncia, neither am I suggesting that Linux, LAMP or whatever are 100% immune and without vulnerability. I update php, apache and god knows what else regularly in order to keep apace - though it is blissfully easy and fixes are released within days rather months after the event. I'm just saying (quite clearly) that 'nix is substantially more secure than certain other popular operating systems because of it's design, rather than because of it's obscurity - which is the charge that Bill Thompson was making.
Drom_Editor on 17/2/2006 at 15:02
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Most users get savaged simply by connecting to the internet. I've had a fresh install of XP wrecked beyond hope within minutes of attaching a network connection. (to download a service pack :tsktsk: ).
Prey tell, what version of windows, is your network connection always on?
My cable network connection
is always on, and probably for a little under a year now, I've been using a service pack 2 slipstream cd to install Windows XP Professional. When blaster and sasser were very prevalent (read, within the first week of their release), I'll agree that it was tough to connect, unpatched, to the Internet to try to download Service Pack 2 or the patch without getting infected right away.
However (and I'm not saying everyone would know to do this), you could abort the auto shutdown incited by either blaster or sasser with a simple "shutdown -a" in the command prompt, giving you time to download the patch (which was small size-wise) and the fix tool for blaster or sasser. You would simply run the removal tool and patch yourself, then get the rest of the patches online.
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 15:12
...in which case you're probably running a firewall (no bad thing) as it's the default behaviour for SP2.
Uncia on 17/2/2006 at 15:13
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
I'm just saying (quite clearly) that 'nix is substantially more secure than certain other popular operating systems because of it's design, rather than because of it's obscurity - which is the charge that Bill Thompson was making.
Except I never said it wasn't, I said your notion that popularity had nothing to do with the number of resulting exploits was naive.
Drom_Editor on 17/2/2006 at 15:19
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...in which case you're probably running a firewall (no bad thing) as it's the default behaviour for SP2.
I'm not running the firewall. I turn off automatic updates, firewall protection, and antivirus monitoring.
I don't have a hardware firewall either.
I am behind a router and a few switches, though. You'd laugh if you knew how our network was set up at our college apt complex.
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 15:43
...so does your router function as a firewall? Only, in all honesty, I can't believe it's possible to run an XP system with complete disregard to security on an open network without it being attacked. Lots. If you're not being attacked then somewhere someone is doing some packet filtering for you. PC users: stop being smug!
Uncia, what? How so?
'nix is only obscure as an operating system on desktop PCs. It has ~65% of the server market. Why is not buying into the argument that 'nix security is based on it's obscurity naive?
