pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure? - Linux

This is a discussion on pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure? - Linux ; http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa...9287864,00.htm Jeff Waugh, from Waugh Partners, an Australian **open source** consulting firm, commented that this result should not be seen as a guarantee that Ubuntu based systems are more secure. "Certainly one of the exploits [the Flash exploit], WOULD have ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure?

  1. pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure?


    http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa...9287864,00.htm



    Jeff Waugh, from Waugh Partners, an Australian **open source** consulting
    firm, commented that this result should not be seen as a guarantee that
    Ubuntu based systems are more secure.

    "Certainly one of the exploits [the Flash exploit], WOULD have allowed entry
    into the Linux system as well," said Waugh, who added that the lower
    penetration of Linux-based systems gave such systems a security advantage.

    "There are not a lot of people focusing on [Ubuntu], because it's not a high
    profile system. The kind of people participating in this event ... would
    want the crowning glory from finding something tasty in Windows or Mac OS
    X," Waugh said. Waugh said that this also highlighted that the OS is not the
    principal security weakness in a desktop.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure?

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:01:39 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa...-than-Leopard-

    Windows-Vista-/0,339028227,339287864,00.htm
    >
    >
    >
    > Jeff Waugh, from Waugh Partners, an Australian **open source**
    > consulting firm, commented that this result should not be seen as a
    > guarantee that Ubuntu based systems are more secure.
    >
    > "Certainly one of the exploits [the Flash exploit], WOULD have allowed
    > entry into the Linux system as well," said Waugh, who added that the
    > lower penetration of Linux-based systems gave such systems a security
    > advantage.


    That, apparently, remains to be proved.


    >
    > "There are not a lot of people focusing on [Ubuntu], because it's not a
    > high profile system. The kind of people participating in this event ...
    > would want the crowning glory from finding something tasty in Windows or
    > Mac OS X," Waugh said. Waugh said that this also highlighted that the OS
    > is not the principal security weakness in a desktop.
    >
    >


    If no one attacks it, that would seem to be a GOOD thing.

  3. Re: pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure?



    Old news.

  4. Re: pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure?


    "Cork Soaker" wrote in message
    news:ft36bn$t8t$4@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >
    > Old news.


    It's news from today.

    You probably prefer to read [News] from the 1990's falsely claiming some NSA
    backdoor in Windows 98. I'm sure that you and the other retards consider
    that to be current news.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure?

    Ezekiel wrote:


    >
    > You probably prefer to read [News] from the 1990's falsely claiming some
    > NSA backdoor in Windows 98. I'm sure that you and the other retards
    > consider that to be current news.
    >
    >


    Yeah yeah yeah!! You're so cool!

  6. Re: pwn to own. Was Linux really more secure?

    Ezekiel wrote:

    >
    >

    http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa...9287864,00.htm
    >
    >
    >
    > Jeff Waugh, from Waugh Partners, an Australian **open source** consulting
    > firm, commented that this result should not be seen as a guarantee that
    > Ubuntu based systems are more secure.
    >
    > "Certainly one of the exploits [the Flash exploit], WOULD have allowed
    > entry into the Linux system as well," said Waugh, who added that the lower
    > penetration of Linux-based systems gave such systems a security advantage.
    >
    > "There are not a lot of people focusing on [Ubuntu], because it's not a
    > high profile system. The kind of people participating in this event ...
    > would want the crowning glory from finding something tasty in Windows or
    > Mac OS X," Waugh said. Waugh said that this also highlighted that the OS
    > is not the principal security weakness in a desktop.
    >
    >


    So even if this were true, Linux *is* a much more secure OS -- simply
    because no-one bothers to attack it.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

+ Reply to Thread