Drom_Editor on 17/2/2006 at 16:14
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...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.
Unless Time Warner is filtering everything before it gets to me (which they aren't), no, nothing we are using is acting as a firewall. The cable modem goes into my gigabit router, then off to our wireless router, a gigabit switch, and 3 10/100 switches.
My computer is connected directly to the initial gigabit router.
I'm pretty competent when it comes to networks and I *usually* know what's going on in the one I set up. Honestly though, if you're completely patched, what makes you think you're vulnerable to the millions of attacks going around? Most of the known, unpatched vulnerabilities require some useless service to be running that I'm probably not running. For those that don't, there's not *that* many widespread attacks targeting them.
If you put a completely patched Windows XP SP 2 machine directly on the Internet right now, I guaruntee that it won't be h@x0r3d within minutes.
SD on 17/2/2006 at 16:24
What's with the two extraneous words in the thread title?
jprobs on 17/2/2006 at 16:45
I have never had a virus in all the years I've had a Windows computer. I did have a bad spell with spyware about 2 years ago. That's when I discovered Firefox. Running firefox, AVG, and ZoneAlarm sitting behind a D-link router... I feel pretty secure.
I still believe 'nix systems are safer just on the basis of obscurity. If 90% of the computers attached to the internet were using MACs, there would be constant attacks on them.
I do dabble in Linux as a hobby. But I use Linux mainly to remove data from corrupt windows PCs.... Knoppix is a wonderful tool:)
Vigil on 17/2/2006 at 17:01
I don't suppose there's a chance of any insights whatsoever being added to this wretched conversation? Or are we doomed to its eternal repetition for some long-forgotten sin?
Uncia on 17/2/2006 at 17:55
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
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?
Would you mind quoting the article author on that claim? 'Cause we seem to have read wildly different articles.
Also, let's not be naive and pretend that "part of the problem" is in any way the same as "based on", so no quotes that can easily be dismissed with some context, hm?
SithLord2001 on 17/2/2006 at 19:34
Quote Posted by jprobs
I did have a bad spell with spyware about 2 years ago. That's when I discovered Firefox
Was firefox around 2 years ago? I know they had their original Mozilla, but It doesn't seem like Firefox has been around that long
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 20:19
Quote:
Would you mind quoting the article author on that claim? 'Cause we seem to have read wildly different articles.
Also, let's not be naive and pretend that "part of the problem" is in any way the same as "based on", so no quotes that can easily be dismissed with some context, hm?
It really doesn't matter how nicely Bill makes his charge.
Let me put it another way. I don't buy into the myth that Linux's or OSX's security is a happy by-product either in whole, or in significant part of it being a minority desktop OS. 'nix is not an obscure, little used system; most of the worlds servers are run with Unix flavours. Unix systems achieve their security by design and by encouraging the user to behave appropriately.
Niether should MS Windows users excuse the relative popularity of their system as the butt of attacks because of being the most popular desktop OS. What's the opposite of smug?
Just a guess, but right now you're logged on with admin privileges and attached to an always on internet connection; and do so as a matter of course... If I made that assertion at a 'nix user they'ed look at me funny. That's why Windows is a popular target for remote attacks - the odds of success are much better and require much less effort than trying to compromise a 'nix system. The idea of singling out OSX users as being complacent over security is a joke.
If Ford cars didn't use locks or need an ignition key you wouldn't try and assert that Fords were a popular target for thieves because they were more common than Hondas.
Uncia on 17/2/2006 at 20:33
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Let me put it another way. I don't buy into the myth that Linux's or OSX's security is a happy by-product either in whole, or in significant part of it being a minority desktop OS.
Let me put it another way. He never states that and you're just ranting for no good reason. If there's a pet peeve involved then at least direct it at the correct target.
Chimpy Chompy on 17/2/2006 at 21:54
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
I don't buy into the myth that Linux's or OSX's security is a happy by-product either in whole, or in significant part of it being a minority desktop OS.
Perhaps its security is a by-product of not being produced by BIG EVIL MICRO$OFT (lol gates=hitler) and not being a favourite hate of hacker nerds?
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 22:20
Quote Posted by Uncia
Let me put it another way. He never states that and you're just ranting for no good reason. If there's a pet peeve involved then at least direct it at the correct target.
Quote Posted by BBC Bill
One reason why there aren't many malicious Mac programs is that there are fewer Mac users out there
I was sort of wondering if you had a pet peeve and were missdirecting it in my direction. As far as I can tell my opinionations are fairly innocuous, even if a little against the grain.
