On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:03 -0800, jdow wrote:
> James, this is "a good thing" for diligent system administrators who
> are paid to lock down systems properly. It is not good for the typical
> desktop system with an owner who wants to do what he wants without
> jumping through fancy OS hoops. And it's those and desktop systems which
> are the real attack and spam amplifiers out there.
>
> And note I added the word "diligent" above. With a diligent system
> administrator none of the recent .edu and .com breakins should have
> happened regardless of the particular OS used. (It is possible to lock
> down OS-X, BSD, and even XP to a remarkable degree. Too many
> institutions do not bite the bullet and pay for the system administration
> they really need. That means holes exist.)
>
> Belt and suspenders is a good approach even if some people only use
> (or need) the belt and others only use the suspenders. If both exist
> then there is a better chance of seeing to it that Linux does not
> become yet another malware host and amplifier system.
>
> {^_^} <- on whom suspenders look "odd" due to certain bumps.
>
----
agree with all of the above except that I have yet to see evidence of
these alleged certain bumps - perhaps Joanne would care to share this
evidence so one doesn't have to accept assertion offered without factual
evidence.
Craig
