Antivirus/malware

[==Troy==]

Get a secure OS, either by getting Vista/Win7, going for security via obscurity, or getting a flavour of linux, or getting OSX.

Fixed.

[Forboding Angel]

Get a secure OS, either by getting Vista/Win7, going for security via obscurity, AND getting a flavour of linux, or getting OSX.

Fixed.

Fixed-ed.

[==Troy==]

Get a secure OS, either by getting Vista/Win7, going for security via obscurity, OR getting a flavour of linux, or getting OSX.

Fixed.

Fixed-ed.

There is no obscurity in linux. Read the code, nothing is hidden.

Please stop stalking my replies on the forum.

[AF]

Just because the obscure item in question is open source, doesnt make it any less obscure. There are literally thousands of configurations and setups and forks of linux. What will breka apart one linux distro will be utterly irrelevant to another

[==Troy==]

The security through obscurity is a term which is directly interpreted as

"source code is not visible, noone sees my bugs, I am safe", which is, really, only true for windows. Just look at their attempts to obfuscate the code.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity)

Linux, on the other hand, is openly free. There is no obscurity there, you can hack away, whatever you want.

As of the "linux is only 1-10%, noone wants to hack it" :
Just compare opensource Apache and Windows ISS server. The latter one runs less than 30% of web servers, but has been hacked in so many ways, that its even hard to remember. (not through weak passwords)



Hence, if you are using the term security through obscurity, use it correctly, if you want to say that linux is insecure due to the distribution mess, then say so.

On the other hand, you are actually proving the security of linux, through its variety, If a bug found in windows, its true for ALL windows platforms (or at least one, which is still a large amount of users). And hence it can be exploited to affect a large portion of the user base.

On the other hand, from your words, one distro is irrelevant to another. If someone finds a bug for SUSE, Ubuntu will not be affected. And hence the spread of the "virus" is stalled only to SUSE, leaving (how many?) other distributions unaffected.


Edit : I am really surprised to see that such sophisticated members of this community can really tell such blatant lies. There are SO many other issues that you can attack linux with, but instead, you prefer to re-state definitions and tell lies.

[AF]

We're not telling blatant lies, rather your deliberately misinterpreting us, and making horrible assumptions, for example:

obscurity != secrecy

It is possible to use security through obscurity with an OS that is completely open source but only used by 5 people in the whole world.

You also completely misunderstand (deliberatly) what the other posters mean by linux not being targeted like windows.

Linux is not as popular as windows, therefore hackers dont exert as much effort into hacking it

Linux is targetted, linux is not targetted, its definately not the latter

Absolutist!! Its not plain black or white!!!

We're not stupid enough to not know that security through obscurity isn't really a security measure at all, its just about as secure as camouflage, its not a true defence, it doesn't make your machine anymore secure in reality, it just makes the pool of known attacks smaller, there are still attacks available to use and they will be used.

So I present to you the Troy method of trolling

[list]
[*]Look for a statement that attempts to call on fact or practises in a field of knowledge
[*]Take the statement in its worst interpretation
[*]Take that interpretation and jump to the nearest worst case mistake
[*]Proceed to denounce the poster as utterly incompetent while declaring yourself an expert on the subject
[*]Wait for a response by the poster trying to prove themselves and repeat the process using the new reply
[*]If pushed into a corner, claim the poster is being unreasonable and declare that you're leaving, but don't actually leave, then wait for another post and repeat the above[/list]

Shake rinse repeat

[==Troy==]

Weird, but it seems that you should apply your algorithm to yourself.

I have even supplied you the article about security through obscurity, and you still try to change the definition of the term.


I never stated that linux is not targeted because it has small user base. Instead I was trying to show exactly opposite (forboing angel or someone else was trying to state that). And hence I made comparacent with Apache, which is open source, and runs majority of webservers, while being hacked LESS than MS ISS server.


Get your facts together. Stating that linux achieves security through obscurity is WRONG. (if you wish I can spell it out for you). Since the security through obscurity requires closed source, obfuscation and any other attempt to HIDE a possible bug in the system, INSTEAD of fixing it.


Problem here is that I am not the troll I have just corrected your mistake, and was done with it. Instead, you continued to propagate the discussion claiming that your statement of security through obscurity is correct.

(P.S. are you really getting paid by M$? Because I am personally starting to believe in what I was told (that one person was claiming ot be paid by MS to promote Win7)).

Security through (or by) obscurity is a principle in security engineering, which attempts to use secrecy (of design, implementation, etc.) to provide security. A system relying on security through obscurity may have theoretical or actual security vulnerabilities, but its owners or designers believe that the flaws are not known, and that attackers are unlikely to find them.

[AF]

Thankyou for the prime example following directly after my howto.

In analysis we can see that troy has taken the mention of security form obscurity as the thing he is going to warp.

Out of this he has come upon the following utterly ridiculous statements, that nobody in this thread has uttered. The only person to mention these points are troy himself in attacking them. He is generating points to attack and them attaching them to the person he wishes to troll.


The term security through obscurity as used in this thread is the following:

Use rarer lesser known software and Operating systems and you will be more secure by virtue of using software for which fewer exploits are known and for which there is less payoff for an investment in cracking.

Now this is not the official definition, yet Troy continues to attack the points that use this term under the pretext of the official term despite knowing full well that they are not based on it.

[==Troy==]

Thankyou for the prime example following directly after my howto.

In analysis we can see that troy has taken the mention of security form obscurity as the thing he is going to warp.

Out of this he has come upon the following utterly ridiculous statements, that nobody in this thread has uttered. The only person to mention these points are troy himself in attacking them. He is generating points to attack and them attaching them to the person he wishes to troll.


The term security through obscurity as used in this thread is the following:

Use rarer lesser known software and Operating systems and you will be more secure by virtue of using software for which fewer exploits are known and for which there is less payoff for an investment in cracking.

Now this is not the official definition, yet Troy continues to attack the points that use this term under the pretext of the official term despite knowing full well that they are not based on it.

You are a retard.

Now, you are not a dumb idiotic person who cannot use standard definitions.

Instead, this is not official definition, and actually, you are a bright, ingenious example of a person who invents a new definition, expecting everyone else to read his mind.

USE CORRECT TERMS SO PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU.

If all virus makers and hackers to to today turn their sights on mac and linux (in this example, ubuntu) and the user being an average know nothing computer user (like a grandmother using windows), I think that mac and linux would crumple much faster than a vista/win7 machine would.

Since Forb was trolling me in another thread, I decided to reply to him in 1 post instead of two. You are right, it is irrelevant to this thread, and I apologize for it.

[AF]

I'm sorry but I can blow your entire thesis apart with this one definition:

#2 Accidental Security Through Obscurity: In a more casual sense, the term ÔÇ£security through obscurityÔÇØ is sometimes used to refer to the idea that a less well-known, less common, and thus less inviting target appears more secure statistically, even if it is not more secure technically. This is the concept behind statements commonly made on the Microsoft Windows side of the Windows/Linux security debate such as ÔÇ£Linux will have just as many security problems as Windows if it ever becomes as popular.ÔÇØ The way the argument works is expressed by another formulation of the same idea: ÔÇ£Linux only looks more secure because itÔÇÖs so unpopular that nobody bothers to attack it.ÔÇØ

You are talking about intentional security through obscurity. We are talking about accidental security through obscurity

Read more here:

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=379

[==Troy==]

As of the "linux is only 1-10%, noone wants to hack it" :
Just compare opensource Apache and Windows ISS server. The latter one runs less than 30% of web servers, but has been hacked in so many ways, that its even hard to remember. (not through weak passwords)

Software which is deliberately released as open source cannot be said to be relying on security through obscurity (the design being publicly available)

At least I am using wikipedia, not blogposts.

[AF]

At least the blogpost is using the same definition of security through obscurity as it is intended in this thread instead of being an uber pedant.

Me wonders why your putting so much effort into a forum thread?

[Beherith]

Thank you for playing, take it to PM from now.