DJ_Shecky

Originally Posted by Cien_Fuegos

with no more sking to a 46 and having a 50 do the mish is it really a double xp weekend?
i dont see the point anymore....

Originally Posted by Pogothulu

AH HA!!!! I never said WHAT my complaint was yet!! So there!!

Originally Posted by NekoAli

*quietly sneaks in and replaces the Neko plush. Let's see if anyone notices*

Originally Posted by Fedor

Right less chance of detection and easier attack routes because windows security is weak. For example, Apache.

This reasoning backfires when one considers that Apache is by far the most popular web server software on the Internet. According to the September 2004 Netcraft web site survey, [1] 68% of web sites run the Apache web server. Only 21% of web sites run Microsoft IIS. If security problems boil down to the simple fact that malicious hackers target the largest installed base, it follows that we should see more worms, viruses, and other malware targeting Apache and the underlying operating systems for Apache than for Windows and IIS. Furthermore, we should see more successful attacks against Apache than against IIS, since the implication of the myth is that the problem is one of numbers, not vulnerabilities.

Yet this is precisely the opposite of what we find, historically. IIS has long been the primary target for worms and other attacks, and these attacks have been largely successful. The Code Red worm that exploited a buffer overrun in an IIS service to gain control of the web servers infected some 300,000 servers, and the number of infections only stopped because the worm was deliberately written to stop spreading. Code Red.A had an even faster rate of infection, although it too self-terminated after three weeks. Another worm, IISWorm, had a limited impact only because the worm was badly written, not because IIS successfully protected itself.



(from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...x/#execsummary)

The simple truth is windows is more open to attack. I work in the industry, I see the articles and comparisons Shecky. microsoft has been hammering that market share drum as an excuse rather than taking the time to fix the problems.

Originally Posted by Fedor

But attack one end user and maybe you get some valuable information about one person. Attack a bank and you get THOUSANDS of people at once. The reason the end user is a soft attack target is bad security and windows is a primary reason for that.

For instance, if I run as admin on a windows box software can install WITHOUT ASKING. Unless you have vista then it pops up and asks which most people click away without even reading. (Not sure how 7 handles this.)

On OSX you have to log in the admin account, even while running as admin. Meaning a virus or malware cannot install without you entering a password to give it permission. And that is only one example of the security flaws in windows.

Originally Posted by Fedor

The commercial argument makes little sense Shecky. Banks, big companies mostly keep sensitive information on Unix boxes and big iron mainframes. The truth it hackers attack windows because it's easy to attack compared to Unix and OS390.

Edit : Hmm, have not seen that handle that I recall Philly, but sure I will see you around. My global is right in my sig there.