Replies

As you have said to me before, "Defend this!". Large market share? More software? Cheap hardware? Should be interesting to hear what you have to say about Windows and the confirmation by the lead M$ Windows guy that its completely insecure.

I don't have to defend it. If you had some technical knowledge, you'd realize that no product is engineered to provide complete security. Not Windows. Not Linux. Not Apache. Not OSX. Etc, etc. Or have you already forgotten about hacks to OpenSSH, Apache chunk handling, Mac OS X Setuid root access, PHP for OSX, Linux WU-FTPD, Linux line printer daemon, Linux BIND, etc, etc, etc ...

I don't have to defend it. If you had some technical knowledge, you'd realize that no product is engineered to provide complete security. Not Windows. Not Linux. Not Apache. Not OSX. Etc, etc. Or have you already forgotten about hacks to OpenSSH, Apache chunk handling, Mac OS X Setuid root access, PHP for OSX, Linux WU-FTPD, Linux line printer daemon, Linux BIND, etc, etc, etc ...

Cop outs and insults. What else would we expect from you? That was not what the manager from Microsoft was saying. He said that they haven't even made the attempt to secure their product. Insecure by default. The organizations you mentioned actually make the effort (and suceed in that effort) to make their products secure, Microsoft is saying it does not. Huge difference.

And to quote you, "If you had some technical knowledge, you'd realize" that BIND and WU-FTPd are not products of Linux nor is their such a thing as a Linux product. Linux is just the kernel of a GNU/Linux system. We wouldn't want you to be 'technically incorrect'.