Re: Windows' future (reprise)

[Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>]

> My main reason for claiming that Windows is inherently insecure is
> because it's closed source.
As opposed to crowd sourcing, which some claim is inherently more
secure because more [uneducated] eyes review the source code? This is
along the lines of, 'Linux does not get viruses' argument. Give me a
break...

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM, lsi <stuart () cyberdelix net> wrote:
> Is that you, Bill?
>
> I think you misunderstand.  9 months ago, I measured the growth rate
> at 243%, using Symantec's stats.  9 months ago I posted that number
> here, together with a prediction of this year's stats.  Recently, I
> got this year's stats and compared them with that prediction.  I
> found that this prediction was 75.4% accurate.  I am now reporting
> those results back to the group.  And this is trolling how?
>
> My point is that the prediction was not wildly wrong, and so that
> leads me to wonder if anything else I said, 9 months ago, was also
> not wildly wrong.
>
> My main reason for claiming that Windows is inherently insecure is
> because it's closed source.  However it's also because of the sloppy,
> monolithic spaghetti code that Windows is made of.  If you're
> claiming Windows is in fact inherently secure, I assume this means
> you don't use AV on any of your Windows machines, and advise everyone
> you know to uninstall it?
>
> I never said migration would be free or easy.  That is why I am
> posting this data here, because I see it as a vulnerability, a very
> big vulnerability that many companies have not woken up to.  The very
> fact that migration is hard, lengthy, and expensive, means that the
> vulnerability is larger than ever.
>
> Stu
>
> On 15 May 2010 at 14:40, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:
>
> From:                   "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor () hammerofgod com>
> To:                     "full-disclosure () lists grok org uk" <full-
> disclosure () lists grok org uk>
> Date sent:              Sat, 15 May 2010 14:40:29 +0000
> Subject:                Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise)
>
> > I am constantly amazed at posts like this where you make yourself sound like some sort of statistical genius because 
> > you were "able to predict" that since last year was %243, that this year would be %243.  Wow.  Really?
> >
> > And for the record, these claims of 'inherent insecurity' in Windows are simply ignorant.  If you are still running 
> > Windows 95 that's your problem.  Do a little research before post assertions based on 10 or 20 year old issues.
> >
> > This smacks of the classic troll, where you say things like "nothing that Microsoft makes is secure and it never 
> > will be" and then go on to say how easy it is to migrate, and how it's free, with only a one off cost, and how to 
> > move off of .NET.
> >
> > Obvious "predictions," ignorant assumptions, and a total lack of any true understanding of business computing.  Yep, 
> > "troll."
> >
> > t
> >
> > [SNIP]

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/