Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:25:53 -0700 From: "Charles Burns" <burnscharlesn@hotmail.com> To: raiden23@netzero.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Breaking permissions on Windows 2000 (Server Edition) Message-ID: <F100mDvHbYxPoLMOEYz000057c8@hotmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> My only assumption on this is he mis-spoke himself, cause I have >yet to see any version of windows that's more secure than Unix. Heck, >window 3.1 and Dos 6.2 are even more secure than anything since >them. Heck, they haven't even produced anything decently respectable since >then. > >> > Fortunately, Windows isn't that much worse than Multics, and is >> > considerably more secure than UNIX. >> >>HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!! hehehe... hohoho. <whew!> Which Unix? RH 6.0 with everything running has more holes than Windows 2000 with the latest patch (at least, more known holes :) I got the impression that he was saying that Multics is secure (which it is/was), and Unix is insecure which, relative to Multics, it is. (at least, design-wise) I doubt that anyone would say with a straight face that a Windows server using, say, IIS, is more secure than a (say) FreeBSD or Solaris server running Apache or Zeus. Both systems can be secured; both systems need to be patched all too often, and both systems should be behind a good firewall. (All of the above: IMHO) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F100mDvHbYxPoLMOEYz000057c8>