Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Obsolescence Good Computer Security?

Posted by Cliff on from the you'd-have-to-step-into-the-present-eventually dept.

caesar-auf-nihil asks: "I was recently considering a switch from dial-up to something faster (either cable or DSL) but my friend recommended against it since he said I was more secure staying with Dial-Up. His argument was that my connection's slowness and 'not always on' connection gave me better security since I was less of a target for many security threats. Now, I have never gotten infected, nor do I believe my machine is infested with spyware and/or controlling programs as it runs fine, but I wonder if the obsolescence argument is really good or not. Does Dial-Up really protect you or is this a false sense of security and I should just go ahead and pick a faster service and make sure my firewall is a good one and my virus definitions are always up to date?"

5 of 490 comments (clear)

  1. Wha? by jfroot · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Let me get this straight; you read Slashdot, but are still on dial-up? That's unpossible.

  2. Re:Broadband Plus OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It certainly is more inherently secure than Windows. Don't you realize that there has never been a macro virus for anything other than a Microsoft product, because Microsoft BUILT THAT FUNCTIONALITY INTO THEIR PRODUCTS? Don't you realize that there has never been an email worm for anything other than a Microsoft product, because Microsoft BUILT THAT FUNCTIONALITY INTO THEIR PRODUCTS? Don't you realize there has never been an ActiveX exploit for any browser other than a Microsoft product, because Microsoft BUILT THAT FUNCTIONALITY INTO THEIR PRODUCTS? This goes on and on.

    Mac OS X is much, must more inherently secure than Windows. A sandboxed userland, requiring a password to alter the contents of system folders, requiring a password to install software & updates, and a sane approach to application design (as opposed to Microsoft's "let's make every application a programming environment") goes a long, long way to providing a more "inherently secure" operating system.

  3. Re:Dial-up does not make you more secure by caluml · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    That way if your Gentoo machine falls over

    Erm, what the fuck? If you know how to run a Linux box, you know how to run a Linux box. Used up all my mod points yesterday...

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  4. Re:Not true by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    being /.ter means you're ugly, so you are not risking rape either. It's a win-win.

    err, wait, ... rape, um, mmh

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
  5. Re:Dial-up does not make you more secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    YOU STUPID FUCK, you have no idea what you are talking about. Security Through Obscurity means that the method that makes you more secure is hidden in secrecy. This is not the case at all. He is completely upfront about using a 56k modem. A 56k Modem might be less or more secure. Your post is wrong.

    Fuck all you stupid moderators for modding up an incorrect post. Fuck slashdot.