From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
Sorry to those who saw the reference already:
http://news.com.com/Spyware+takes+aim+at+Mozilla+browsers/2100-7349_3-5569635.html
{^_^}
