Re: Why is Windows *Technically* More Secure Than OS X?
- From: Donald L McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:06:05 -0800
In article <436800FF.68C80801@xxxxxxxx>, GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> >
> > In article <4366BB80.8A3AF8E4@xxxxxxxx>, GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You are so "special", aren't you...especially in your own eyes. Get
> > > > your eyes away from that mirror, and start recognizing that there are
> > > > other people in the Universe who are just as knowledgeable as you
> > > > (maybe even more knowledgeable).
> > >
> > > Are you a wintard??
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >Like I said, I don't know either of you two. If you really
> > > > > >> >think he isn't competant enough, that is your business.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >The design of windows never did have security in mind and
> > > > > >> >> >> >never will.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> That was one of the design goals of Windows NT.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >Now show me proof.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I suggest you pick up a copy of "Windows Internals, 4th Edition"
> > > > > >> >> ISBN
> > > > > >> >> 0-7356-1917-4.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >That is not proof.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Somehow I don't think that you went out and bought the book and
> > > > > >> read
> > > > > >> about Windows security in these few short hours. Thus you're
> > > > > >> unqualified to dismiss if.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I am qualified to dismiss M$ built in hype when they print
> > > > > >their own books.
> > > >
> > > > How does Microsoft printing their own books make you more qualified to
> > > > dismiss any so-called "hype"?. A thinking man never listens to "hype"
> > > > in the first place, no matter where it comes from. And he certainly
> > > > doesn't base his purchasing decisions on that "hype". And he also
> > > > recognises "hype" when he hears it, no matter its source is.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fool. Only an idiot would believe all of the M$ marketing
> > > hype.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Printed by Microsoft Press. Authored by some very well respected
> > > > > people in the industry. Compared to them you "Mr. Apache doesn't ship
> > > > > in the client version of OS X" are completely unqualified.
> > > > >
> > > > > >How come then did it cost the IT industry over $2billion in
> > > > > >damages by M$ products?
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft products do not cause damage to the IT industry. Malware
> > > > written by teenage scriptkiddies and plotting hackers causes the
> > > > damage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://news.com.com/Experts+estimate+damages+in+the+billions+for+bug/2100-
> > > 1001
> > > _3-240112.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Experts estimate damages in the billions for bug
> > >
> > > By Paul Festa and Joe Wilcox
> > > Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> > > Published: May 5, 2000, 1:55 PM PDT
> > > TalkBack E-mail Print TrackBack
> > >
> > > update A new virus sweeping through computer systems today
> > > will likely be the most costly yet, analysts said.
> > >
> > > The virus, dubbed "I Love You," has already affected
> > > thousands of corporate sites, according to security firm
> > > Symantec, some of which were forced
> > > to shut down their email systems in an effort to choke it
> > > off.
> > >
> > > A partial list of those affected by the virus confirmed by
> > > CNET News.com were Silicon Graphics, the Department of
> > > Defense,
> > > DaimlerChrysler, The Motion Picture Association of America,
> > > the Federal Reserve and Cox Cable.
> > >
> > > The cost of lost business for such defensive actions alone
> > > could far outstrip costs attributed to previous attacks by
> > > viruses such as Melissa, which
> > > rang up a stinging $80 million price tag. Unlike Melissa,
> > > the I Love You virus has the ability to destroy data, which
> > > could drive potential costs
> > > considerably higher. The virus wipes out certain pictures
> > > and music files.
> > >
> > > "In terms of spreadability, this will outrank everything
> > > we've seen so far," said Vincent Weafer, director of
> > > Symantec's AntiVirus Research Center
> > > (SARC). "Just based on initial reports of infections and
> > > potential infections, we're talking thousands of
> > > corporations around the world."
> > >
> > > More than 45 million computers around the globe have been
> > > infected by various strains of the virus, according to
> > > Computer Economics, a research
> > > firm in Carlsbad, Calif.
> > >
> > > "We estimate $2.61 billion of damage has been done," Samir
> > > Bhavnani, a research analyst with Computer Economics, told
> > > Reuters. "By Wednesday,
> > > the total can reach $10 billion. We see damages growing by
> > > $1 billion to $1.5 billion a day until the virus is
> > > eradicated."
> > >
> > > So much for your knowledge about the damages, there
> > > wintroll.
> >
> > Well, stud, my reading of your quote is that the damage was caused by a
> > virus (therefore, the writer of the virus), not Microsoft.
>
> Which is due to the crappy o/s design.
>
> Now show me another o/s that has this same problem.
>
> >
> > You really are a maroon.
>
> You clearly can not use logic properly.
>
> > Even the article you claim to be quoting says
> > CLEARLY that the damage was caused by a VIRUS, not the Operating
> > System, yet you quote it in a misguided attempt to prove that Microsoft
> > caused the damage. Didn't you even read it before you inserted it into
> > your text? Or do you suffer from a shortage of English Comprehension
> > skills.
> >
>
> The o/s is poorly designed. Any hacker can gain entry,
> hence the poor security design.
> This is what caused the damages.
Did you know that my ISP requires me to keep all ports open at all
times on my satellite modem? Does this make it intrinsically insecure?
I don't believe it does. But my connection will not work properly if
ports are closed on the modem.
>
> > If I remember the "I love you" virus scare correctly, NO ONE in the
> > Industry blamed Microsoft.
>
> Oh, yes they have.
If anyone has, it is Maccies like you, or Microsoft detractors of one
kind or another. Or fringe weirdos who are simply jumping on the "lets
all hate Microsoft" bandwagon.
>
> > They all put the blame SQUARELY on the
> > writer of the virus. But there will always be those on the fringes who
> > will use anything to attempt to prove how "evil" Microsoft is. A few
> > idiots like yourself tried to blame the OS, but they were totally
> > ignored by reasonable men.
> >
> > Your quote proves MY position, not YOURS.
>
> Hardly. Obviously the point went WWWWOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHH
> right over your head.
>
> >
> > I guess if you let a fool run off at the mouth enough, he will finally
> > show how much a fool he really is.
>
> Guffaw!!! That a boy, sonny. Keep yammering.
--
Donald L. McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
=======================
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why is Windows *Technically* More Secure Than OS X?
- From: GreyCloud
- Re: Why is Windows *Technically* More Secure Than OS X?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why is Windows *Technically* More Secure Than OS X?
- Next by Date: Re: Ping: Wally and Tim, Part II
- Previous by thread: Re: Why is Windows *Technically* More Secure Than OS X?
- Next by thread: Re: Why is Windows *Technically* More Secure Than OS X?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
