-----Original Message-----
From: Doppleganger Software <doppsoft@tzc.com>
To: CIRCLE@post.queensu.ca <CIRCLE@post.queensu.ca>
Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: mud code stolen
>sounds strange, but it is true: The MacOS is the most secure OS on the
>internet. By default NOTHING can be accessed by people.
That's because nothing is compatibile with the Mac OS. (Exception: Alien
computers in Independence Day film - ever wondered why?).
>>The best way to insure that your code will not be accesible to *anyone* is
>>to use a Macintosh, from there up you'll deal with ever more problems
>>where the unixen are in both ends (linux in one end, IRIX in the other) of
>>security <--> insecurity, with the different flavors of windows right in
>>the middle.
Most OS are secure if you take the effort to lock them down. The trouble is,
not many people know how to lock down the OS, or that they have to lock it
down in the first place (I still see world readable personal files on Unix
boxes everywhere). The problem is not that Windows is insecure, but that
Windows defaults to an insecure condition when installed, and increasing the
security to an effective level involves technical know-how and (for Win95)
some extra software - though it can be argued that everyone needs extra
software (a good virus scanner and firewall).
If you lock down ANY box properly people aren't going to get in unless they
are both very good and have a lot of time on their hands. There was a recent
article in Windows NT magazine where they locked down two web servers (one
NT4, one AS400) and gave two teams of security consultants 24 hours to break
in. They couldn't break into either machine it in the time allowed. I've read
of other attempts, with the same results. However, install it straight out of
the box and even I can get in.
><grin> I love hearing things like this said. And actually, I'd place
>Windows more towards the insecure end. Why? Programs like Back Orifice
Back Orifice is a user education issue (actually a sysop education issue).
There are scanners that pick it up and clean it off, though I don't know
whether Norton or Dr Solomon's do yet. And what are you or your users doing
downloading binary executables in the first place if you have no virus
scanner?
>>For windows... Well, you can never be sure with Windows... You protect
>>everything and then a jerk comes up with a winnuke program and nukes you
>>out the net.
I think Win98 is immune to Winnuke, and NT is definately so, if you have the
Security Pack... oops, Service Pack 3. If you run Windows 95 you're asking for
trouble, unless you have a very, very good firewall. It should be called
Wintendo on account of the only reason for its existence is games. My desktop
runs NT. With NT, at least I can keep the bad guys out (not that it matters
that much on a dial-up connection) and it only falls over once a month or so,
which is fine by me since I reboot my desktop once a week, so basically, it
never falls over.
Yea, I know, Linux is much more stable, and technically superior... but it's
too much effort for me. "Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Display ->
Appearance -> Font" is better than "vi xf86config" anyday. ;-)
Sandy
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST