On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:56:26 -0500
"John Lightfoot" <jlightfoot@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Besenbruch wrote:
<snip>
Clueless people will always be with us. No OS is going to keep them safe,
but some may do a better job than others. You seem successful in managing
Windows boxes, but my experience is the opposite. Those daughters who kept
getting their computer infected? They never were told the root password. It
also meant a lot that they couldn't just double click something and have it
run. Such a simple difference in design can mean the world.
</snip>
I don't see why you think Linux is any better at this. If you gave those
same daughters a fully patched Windows XP box, turned on automatic updates,
and gave them accounts that were only in the Users group (i.e. not
administrators), their chance of getting infected would be zero, too.
I don't think your chances of getting infected are ever "zero".
Good old "nothing's ever 100% secure"...
I've seen quite a few applications that (at least claim) to
require adminstrative privileges. This may be a design flaw in
those applications, or perhaps there's an underlying problem in
Windows' user privileges seperation, or some such. In short,
I've found it far less painful to run as a restricted user (I
don't mean a "Power User" user either - these are just users
who haven't made themselves administrators yet) on UNIX-like
systems than on Windows.
--
Nick Withers
email: nick@nickwithers.com
Web: http://www.nickwithers.com
Mobile: +61 414 397 446
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
