OpenBSD Vulnerabilty

*no comment* writes "Normally vulnerability reports on slashdot wouldn't make it because there are so many. This one however is for the normally very secure OpenBSD. Someone can crash an OpenBSD bridge using a newly discovered ICMP exploit. More can be read here. This shouldn't affect most people as this only affects people that use OBSD as a bridge."

Comments

Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally vulnerability reports on slashdot wouldn't make it because there are so many.

That is, unless it's a vulnerability in Microsoft software.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Mark_MF-WN]

I didn't realize that you were "most people". You think just because YOU haven't been affected by Microsoft vulnerabilities, that most other Windows users haven't been as well? That's an invalid generalization if there ever was one.

Slashdot is anti-microsoft for a reason -- Microsoft software is technologically inferior. It has way too many severe vulnerabilities. Without a firewall, a fresh Windows 2000 installation will have a worm within a minute of connecting to the internet. And that's without ever opening a single application. No other operating system EVER MADE can compare to that.

No matter what fantasy world you live in, you cannot argue that Windows is not horrifically insecure.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[javax]

"I haven't been affected by even one microsoft vulnerability"

Think this should be "I haven't yet noticed of being affected by even one"

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Lars T.]

Funny, I haven't been affected by even one microsoft vulnerability.

You may actually think so, but you probably have. Had to wait for a product you ordered because a company involved in making or shipping it was hit by a mail worm? Had a slower internet "experience" because of Blaster? Get more Spam via distributed Spam relays installed by a worm? And I'm not even counting things like not being able to get cash at the ATM because it BSODed because that's not a vulnerability.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[merdark]

I didn't realize that you were "most people". You think just because YOU haven't been affected by Microsoft vulnerabilities, that most other Windows users haven't been as well? That's an invalid generalization if there ever was one.

Notice I never said that most windows users have not been affected by a vulnerability? Notice that I said *I* have never been affected? Not being affected has a lot to do with knowing how to secure computer systems and avoid installing suspect software.
I do not disagree that there are bad microsoft vulnerabilities that affect a ton of users. But, slashdot is still overly zealous in their reports on microsoft vulnerabilities.

Slashdot is anti-microsoft for a reason -- Microsoft software is technologically inferior.

Nope. Microsoft is not inferior at all. It is far more insecure, yes, but it's definatly not inferior. Part of why microsoft software is insecure is that it is far more complicated than other pieces of software. For instance, the recent run URI handler 'vulnerability' that slashdot jumped on. Mac OS X also has such functionality, and had similar vulnerabilites. Linux did not have similar vulnerabilites, because it does not have this functionality.

No other operating system EVER MADE can compare to that.

Keep in mind that no other operating system EVER MADE has had the reach or user base that Windows has either. No doubt people will learn from Microsoft's mistakes, just as Microsoft has. This is the way of the world.

Airplanes used to have very little security, and people would even smoke on them. Cars originally had no seat belts, and even when they did, wearing them was not mandatory for the longest time. Moterbike riders didn't used to wear, or have to wear, helments. These are all absurd things *now*, but at the time people did not realize it.

Operatining systems are no different. Before the internet, microsoft did not need to think of securing in the way they do now. They realized the importance of it too late, and are now in quite a bind.

I always find it funny that people on slashdot tend to have a holier than thou attitude instead of a "let's observe and learn" attitude. This is why slashdot's silly anti-microsoft slant annoys me so. Other sites report on windows problems without being so snide.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[NutscrapeSucks]

> No other operating system EVER MADE can compare to that.

Except RedHat Linux 5.x and 6.x.

The RH releases from the same era as W2K had dozens of remote holes in the install and had serveral worms targetting them, a long with lots of script kiddie activity. A study showed that an unpatched RedHat box would be owned in in a mean time of less than 5 minutes. Someone even made t-shirts that said "My other computer is your Linux box."

(However, like Win2000, a RH box could be secured by a competant administrator.)

Trying to judge technological inferiority by bug counts is inane, especially because Unix/Linux doesn't really have a significantly better record than Microsoft. (Compare the record of IIS6 versus Apache over the last year or so, for example...) So I would rephrase your statement: Slashdot is anti-microsoft for a reason -- Slashdot believes their shit don't stink