Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:49:33 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I wonder if the attacks on SCO Unix came IBM starship Enterprise!?
On Jan 27, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Todd Walker wrote:
> http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/2100-1002_3-5148058.html?
> type=pt&part=marketwatch-cnet&tag=feed&subj=news
>
>
>
>
> "To say a system is secure because no one is attacking it is very
> dangerous," said Gates,
> referring to operating systems that have a smaller share of the desktop
> market, such
> as Apple's Macintosh OS and the open-source software Linux.
>
> But patch management continues to be the largest headache, Gates said.
> "Everybody who had their
> software completely up-to-date (during the epidemics) was immune to
> those problems. But only 20
> percent of our customers were, so obviously, we weren't doing enough."
>
>
> Hmmm - My Mac OS X server has survived attacks directed at UNIX that
> were successful against
> various other UNIX servers around here a number of times. According to
> Gates, no one is attacking it.
> The last time I checked the goal of most attackers was to take over
> Unix systems, not Windows
> computers, because they were more useful once hijacked. The "attacks"
> against OS X continue
> on a regular basis, they just don't succeed.
>
Yasvir Tesiram
PostDoctoral Fellow
Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
Dept. Free Radical Biology and Ageing
825 NE 13th Street, OKC, OK, 73104
P: (405) 271 7126
F: (405) 271 1795
E: [log in to unmask]
|
|
|