AbsoluteVista

Windows Vista for SMBs by John Obeto

Blogroll

Links

Linux & The Phalanx2 rootkit: it’s our fault?

According to a yum-yum on Cnet, it is a problem with people, not the code.

Say what now?

Describing Phalanx2 as "a self-injecting kernel rootkit designed for the Linux 2.6 branch that hides files, processes and sockets and includes tools for sniffing a tty program and connecting to it with a backdoor."

Okay…..

This drone then goes on to try to explain that while Linux may be ‘inherently more secure than Windows, as long as admins fail to secure it, it will be just as vulnerable.

That so, Sherlock?

Isn’t it amazing how the cattle try to moonwalk away from the truth every time?

Listen, dodo, that explanation holds true for every operating system.

However, since Microsoft has made ‘Secure by Design’  an architectural priority in Windows, the attack surface has decreased, and the number of vulns reported for Windows has been the best of any OS these past couple of years.

Contrast that to your stuff, yoyo!

You can now see why Linux, however much these clown bray about it, can never get traction with regular humans.

Can you imagine telling a business owner that the reason some criminal in some former Cold War country made off with their data is because it’s all about the people, not the code?

If you installed Linux as the operating system for your business, or your clients' business for that matter, he's right: it's your fault!

Linux, the favorite of the ‘live-under-the-stairs-in-my-grandma’s-basement’ crowd.

Not ready for business, Linux is!

Comments

adacosta said:

I am not gonna bash Linux, because I personally believe in competition and people having the freedom to have an opinion and create something. But what irritates me from the Linux crowd is when they use inaccurate information to describe Windows as less secure. Its even strange when they compare Windows 98 with the latest Linux distribution in terms of security.

Most persons who run Linux along with Windows tend upgrade to the latest Linux distro with an old version of Windows such as 98 or NT 4 still hanging around. Its an unfair analysis, just like an article I was reading on a website that Windows XP does not support more than 4 GBs of RAM, when its clear that Microsoft did release Windows XP Professional x64 which does support more than 4 GBs of RAM. The use these little nuances to escape the eye of the casual reader who might not be as in depth when analyzing situations like these..

Jihad I believe needs to stop, Linus has even said it, if you are happy with Linux, great, if you are happy with Windows no problem. Even his parents still Windows.

# September 4, 2008 11:48 AM

Lynnfield said:

In time when windows XP was released (2002?)4GB was overkill for all systems. It's like having 16GB now. So less then 1% used more then 4GB. If you had more RAM you could always use x64 version (professional edition only) Microsoft has always a solution, even for the little group of people that use more extreme stuff.

# September 5, 2008 8:29 AM