On Sunday 13 October 2002 01:44 pm, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: [snip] > > So, what role does the definitions play for a well-patched and well > maintained system, other than identifying that something is going on? Are > there unpatchable, intrinsic design flaws that could be exploited by > viruses? If so, what is it that prevents exploits by anybody? > > Well, I'm just curious... :-)
somebody, somewhere, far more eloquent than i'm disposed to attempt right now, wrote that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and i'm inclined to agree with that. using the aid and advice of others never entails an assurance that you can totally rely on that aid and advice, no matter how noble the source. the same old rule applies: the only truly safe box is one that's never connected to anything anywhere, and best encased in concrete, and kept behind a locked door. in fact, to assure your protection vis-a-vis viral infection, follow the same plan as that which assures you of ever avoiding the common cold, i.e., never touch anyone, and never touch anything that anyone has ever touched. you could, of course, encase yourself in concrete, but, as far as i know, you'd be cutting yourself off from everything other than anything more complex than the simplest bacteria needs in order to survive. of course, the really bad news is that, according to emerging scientific discovery, even the simplest bacteria are susceptible to viral attack. in which case, i'd advise sticking with vigilance. wash your hands, don't touch your eyes or nose; in the event of infection, keep yourself warm and eat nutritious foods that don't stimulate mucous membranes, and translate this into its cyber equivalent for the health of your box. as far as safe-surfing is concerned, you're better off accepting that we still don't have a really effective latex condom out here, not even anything as good as lambskin. and, as if that wasn't bad enough, all the police in your immediate world already have access to knowing more about you that you'd care to admit to yourself. vigilance is the way, and the first part of that is relieve yourself of the assumption that you ever had any right to privacy, to begin with. here, it's worth noting that any legal definition of harm is necessarily dependent on proof that harm has been done, except, of course, in the u.s., where evidence of merely offensive thought can apparently be construed as a real offence. but, universally, as far as system architectures are concerned, there are no totally absolutely defensible or impenetrable edifices. when it comes to your own system, the best you can do is meet the assault as it happens. on a *nix box or system, you've got a far better chance of heading harm off sooner, even whether wintel or amd. even on a mac, given that they're in the minority, you're less vulnerable than on any kind of wincrap, but asking for an architecture that is invulnerable to invasion, there i've got to refer you back to the concrete block that may or may not have a cpu somewhere inside. come to think of it, does anybody remember the blocks that were hyped a few years back? whatever happened to them? i guess there wasn't enough concrete involved. the bottom line is that the architecture isn't really the issue, though it can play a part. viruses propogate by exploiting software hooks that accommodate the attempted infection. your own vigilance should suffice. the value of what you have is only worth as much effort as you put into protecting its ability to serve your interest. i guess this has been a really long-winded way of saying i don't really get the point of your question. sorry, but i'm going to post this, anyway. ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
