[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At the rate of attacks, at some point, Outlook
will be the most secure and virus resistant client
available.
I didn't say the open source community is the culprit unless
of course you want to include virus code file swapping as a form
of open source; I said the same environment breeds it.
That is how Klez became as sophisticated as it is.
Like Linux, lots of people hack the same code. It is
an outlaw community but it lives in the same neighborhood.
Because such communities seem to be epidemic, the whole
web is taking the hit from the standpoint of considering
moving vital computing resources onto the web. It simply
isn't safe.
So why does Outlook continue to be the target? If MS did release
the Outlook source, would the open source community work to
secure it or go on bashing MS, and in some cases, use that
knowledge to create meaner more robust viruses? Is all the
MS bashing symptomatic of a culture that encourages the criminals?
Blaming MS for the actions of hacker virus writers is making a criminal
out of the victims. Telling them how to fix the security holes
helps everyone but the virus writers.
len
From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:dms@sosnoski.com]
I guess you've never heard of the "attractive nuisance" laws. They're
what require (e.g.) swimming pool owners to put up fences so that
neighborhood children won't be tempted to dive in uninvited. There're
also product liability laws that prevent shoddy workmanship in physical
goods sold to customers, but so far software companies have managed to
avoid getting those applied to software.
In any case, MS is *not* the crime victim. The victims are their
customers. And to suggest that the open source community is the culprit
is so far out in left field that I won't even dignify it with a response.
|
