On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 09:03, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Robert Adkins wrote: > > > Everyone, > > > > We can go back and forth all day about how MS creates inherently > > insecure systems, flame war back and forth about this or that until we > > are all blue in the face. However, this is a Red Hat mutual support list, > > not a Microsoft Flame War list. >
As I read that, I did not think so much that MS was to blame but that the importance of keeping up with patches to ANY software is of the highest magnitude. The other thing that really jumped out at me wa th authors stance that software patches are not the solution. Having developed software on some pretty large internal systems in a previous life, I feel that if we all waited for error free software before rolling out, none of us would have a computer on out desktop. Is there room for improvement, yes. will pathches/upgrades always be nesessary, IMNSHO yes. One of the reasons that MS gets slammed so hard is that their software is so prevalent. It is so easy to install a service on any box and not know it is running or not know how to make it secure that I have a hard time blaming MS for stuff like this. I suspect that linux system vulnerabilities don't get the press is that there are not as many of them out there and that the average linux user/admin is WAY more cognizant of what is running on his box and as a result more apt to keep up with the updates. RHN and the like are tools that should help keep systems updated and massive attacks like this on the linux platform to a minimum. How many times on this very list have I seen someone whine about getting hacked and someone else chime in with "bummer dude the patch was availible six months ago." No one blamed RedHat or apache for needing to release a patch. my $0.02 Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
