Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 1
I like where the internet has gotten under US law. Why would a change, as big a this, be necessary ? Then you must have a black-hat business. As a white-hat, I can assure you that the Internet in the United States is a technologically-backward cesspool that spews forth as much spam and network abuse as China and India. If you truly think the Americans are doing good things for the Internet, then you are badly misinformed, or not welcome on my network. Either way, it's not really a big change for ICANN to move out of the US. Given my views above, I think it's a good idea, too.
Maybe you should live somewhere where there is less than 6 hours of daylight during the shortest day of the year and see if you still have the same view. And don't forget that the sun won't set until after midnight during the summer. Hopefully you don't have to work too early the next day.
I never bought the "energy saving" crap anyway. Compared to what they were spending on the Iraq war, the figures they presented were pathetically low, especially given the effort to change it. All I had to do was look at all of the hardware clocks at home to realize what the real reason was: electronic warfare. Anyone that didn't pony up large chunks of change to the DST consultants had to deal with the embarassment (at a minimum) of having their clocks be out-of-whack for 3 full weeks. I'd imagine that most of the DST consultants were American, too. Let's add up all the consulting bills to fix this articificial problem to find out what the real economic driver was.
I despise the bastards who came up with this foolish idea. I wish that people were intelligent enough to realize that their government has once again lied to them about their motives. They should be demanding results for such an expensive implementation, and there is a conspicuous lack thereof. I, for one, can see through this transparent American malevolence. I only wish Canada would declare war so I could do something about it.
It's just like any other professional sport. There's slo-pitch and there's hardball. PvP WoW is definitely on the hardball end of the spectrum. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to play. Anyway, I really doubt that I'm going to be in any of these tournaments. Just watching these guys compete would be really exciting, let alone being part of the gig.
You can think of x86 as a way to compress the storage needed to contain the equivilent RISC instructions needed to perform the same work, that means that you make better use of available memory bandwidth and caches etc, your memory is vastly slower than the processor so you've got to make use of its bandwidth efficiently. I think it's even better than that. The chip itself is engineered to do some of these complex instructions in hardware. I still remember pointing out to my prof. who was teaching RISC on PDP-11 that a particular series of instructions equivalent on x86 would actually involve loading SI and DI and executing a single STOS(D) instruction instead of translating the PDP assembly line-by-line. As pissed off as he was, I'm still right. The instruction set of the x86 contains many hardware optimizations that increase the number of instructions you have to know. However, I don't care how tight your RISC loop is, that STOS(D) instruction is lightning fast!
I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of how Intel's CISC can solve some really basic problems very well. I've only ever heard complaints from the "dinosaurs".
Definitely an interesting read. I'm glad there was a considerable technical discussion -- it laid some good groundwork for discussing very technical details among computer illerati. Curiously, the expert witness is very adamant about the fact that matching the IP address in the source header to the IP address received by the MediaSentry server was proof positive that there was no router being used. My understanding of NAT is a little different than his. I'm certain that my network traffic does not contain any evidence of what the internal IP is, and I'm pretty certain that most SOHO routers also eliminate any evidence of the private network (otherwise it wouldn't be private!). It is the source address part of the payload that is rewritten both when the packet is sent, and when the reply is received.
Sort of directed at Mr. Beckerman: I think these details are the clearest indication of the expert's limitations. You've already limited the scope of his 'expertise', and the complete lack of any documentation of the MediaSentry process, coupled with this expert's inability to prove that the wireless router in question didn't actually exist should force the MediaSentry process out into the open, or hopefully to be proven inadequate as an evidence-gathering tool.
That being said, there is a danger here that was brought up earlier: the idea that an account holder is not actually liable for their own account. That's a bad idea. I know the Internet is filled with anonymity and uncertainty, but making an Internet connection an ability to blame-shift your illicit online activities to 'some cracker' is a bad trend. Best is to start making ISPs more responsible for the security of their network. Funnily enough, despite the rampant abuse my server receives on a daily basis, none of it comes from Canadian or European networks; only American and Asian ones. Food for thought.
I simply don't trust these large collections of private information. Who knows what they will do with it? Privacy Policy?
As we continue to develop our business, we might sell or buy businesses or assets, or Turnitin might be acquired by another company. In any of those circumstances, personal information in our databases may be included among the transferred assets. Sweet. There's the loophole. They just have to go out of business or get bought by someone who doesn't have the same privacy policy, and another company has a large sample of your creative work with which to do whatever they want, as long as they don't get caught infringing your copyright.
I don't trust privacy policies. There's no laws that can be enforced if the company in question violates their own policy, and it's ridiculously hard to prove it even if they did. And, as you can see here, most privacy policies have a not-difficult-to-imagine scenario which would involve complete loss of control of the private information you did provide. I'd like to see more work done on making companies stick to their privacy policies, and large fines or jail time if they don't.
I am anti-American right now. This is something I decided after Americans (as a society, not individually) decided that they needed 4 more years of Bush. The first election I was willing to write off as a fraud, but the second one was the will of the people. I blame, in this order:
1) George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of their gang 2) Those who voted for Bush knowing full well what he stood for 3) Those who voted for Bush not knowing what he stood for (ignorance is not an excuse) 4) Those who didn't vote and would have voted against Bush (apathy is not an excuse) 5) Those who voted against Bush but didn't speak out against them (I know, it's not an easy thing to do) 6) Those who joined the army after 9/11 (yeah, you probably think you're fighting "terrorists" or bringing "freedom to the people", but you're just a tool of an evil, corrupt government)
Those of you who voted against Bush and are not afraid to publicly speak of his evil, I wish I could meet more of you. And to those who joined the American Army prior to all of this terrorism bullshit, I'm sorry you got used for the wrong reason.
Most of the world hates you right now. I'm not afraid to say it, and I think that the posts here should give you a pretty good indication that there's a multitude of reasons why. The good news is that it's difficult to imagine an American government that's more evil or more corrupt, so 2008 is almost definitely going to bring about an improvement. Unfortunately, that's still about 8 years too late.
There has to be enough room in the future technology development for us to foster and train our citizens to come up with new concepts which will not rely on foreign brains, labor, or money to develop, market, and sell. That would require that there were American brains. When the knowledge is in someone else's hands, and they aren't giving it away, how will you gain this knowledge? I'd suggest reading some more books and spending some more money on education instead of trying to subjugate the technologically superior (which is almost everyone these days).
Well, technically you would probably end up bombing the entire planet back into the stone age, or the return fire would. Luckily, I have prepared a cave with 47 computers and a satellite uplink high in the Canadian Rockies for such an eventuality. I'll still be playing WoW while you scrounge through nuclear waste for clothing and food.
...some lawyer working for McCain who hasn't realised that laughing along with the joke is a lot more dignified than litigation? If there was an American politician who was capable of laughing at the joke these days, I'd say McCain would be the guy. Let's hope he takes the high road; it's a long campaign ahead of him.
You got a reference for that? I understand "Slashvertisement" to mean an article posing as news being a means to advertise something/one else. My apologies for my ignorance.
The submitter is just pumping up clicks to his own site. You'll notice that he's also the author of TFA. I don't see that this is a particularly useful system, since you'd just be building binaries on another box anyway. If you're going to do that, you might as well just build an upgrade CD and upgrade through the normal process.
I've considered it, but there's a lot of barriers. First, you need enough evidence for a subpoena. That means that the chain of custody has to be preserved, and the crime scene needs to be secured by the police. Usually that means giving the compromised machines, relevant logs from monitoring equipment, etc. over to Law Enforcement for an indeterminate amount of time. I know I can't live without my servers for that long.
You need to get the subpoena to identify the person behind the attack. That assumes that your evidence actually points to a specific suspect. Unless your attacker was a complete moron, or your network logs are incredibly voluminous, that's not very likely. Once the subpoena is served and you've got your suspect and laid charges, you need to present evidence. That requires an expert witness. If you're lucky, YOU are the expert witness, but there's training and certification involved in that process. Otherwise, you get to hire an expert witness, and that won't be cheap. Your opponent will probably hire an opposing expert, just to confuse everybody.
Overall, I'd say that chances of success are incredibly low. Legal fees will be very high, and you have to turn over a fair chunk of your network assets to Law Enforcement. Basically, if you aren't really, really sure that you've got your man, it's really not worth the time and effort to find out who it was. That effort is much better spent allowing you to sleep at night knowing that people aren't getting in, IMO.
I've dealt with a couple security breaches in the past. It's never easy, and there's always that feeling of being violated as well. The important thing is to not lose your head about it, or you'll make mistakes that could lead to another or worse breach.
First, find out the extent of the breach. Analyze your log files. Find out what time it happened. Find out who was logged in at the time, and find out any log messages from any system services that can help you figure out what the problem was. If you can't figure out what the scope of the breach was with a high level of confidence, then you have to assume the worst: the entire network is compromised.
Second, salvage what you can. Again, be very careful about doing this. Hopefully you have a backup somewhere which would allow you to avoid or shorten this step as much as possible. In essence, do what you have to do to the compromised machine to avoid losing work, but always be concious of the fact that the machine is compromised, and may be transmitting or recording keylogs or other sensitive information. If possible, disconnect the compromised machines from the Internet and isolate it from the rest of your LAN.
Third, plan for the future. How would this breach be avoided in the future? Was it an OS problem? If so, then maybe you need to install OpenBSD instead. Was it a problem with a particular package you were using? Choose a different package. Can you configure your firewall or server to prevent or limit the abuse that caused the problem in the first place (e.g. fail2ban to deal with SSH phishing attacks) or install monitoring software to alert you of a problem (e.g. an IDS like Snort)? Do your users need further training? Does your password policy allow weak passwords? Etc.
Finally, take a deep breath. Unless you've been totally negligent in your job, there wasn't much you could do to prevent it. Don't worry about the fact that you don't have enough to go to the police; most Network Administrators don't have the hardware, training or certification to present evidence in a courtroom anyway. If you can go to the cops, then bully for you! Make that black-hat asshole pay!
He also argues that putting the onus of spotting infringement onto the content providers represents an undue burden on them Oh please. You want an easy solution. They want more than an easy solution, they want to shift the burden from where it has been rightfully placed: with the content creator. It has always been required for a creator to be vigilant in protecting their copyright; it is a valid defense to show that the creator isn't protecting it. Now that the job has gotten difficult they want to somehow centralize it, write a search engine and magically remove only the infringing content and sue only the infringing parties. Sorry, but they need to write the search engine themselves and prove to a court that it doesn't produce any false positives.
Well, it's not for everyone, that's for sure. I've gotten really interested in mouse gestures of late though, especially on the touchpad for my laptop. It has a "Click-lock" feature which allows me to click and drag using only the touchpad. The gesture took a little bit of effort, and it's certainly not for little stubby fingers, but totally worth it. I love having an ultra-sensitive touchpad, and the addition of this gesture allows me to avoid the clumsiness of holding down the button with my thumb while dragging stuff across my desktop. I need only one button on my touchpad now: the one that pops up the context menu.
NVIDIA had a mouse gesture for switching between desktops a while back, whipping the mouse around in a circle clockwise or counterclockwise depending on which desktop you wanted to use. It wasn't great -- I had a hard time getting the sensitivity exactly right -- but it was a novel way to control the computer. I hope to see more developments like this; I'm sure most of us hacker types that have great keyboarding skills will get a lot of use out of more flexible, customizable mouse control.
I love not being able to access Metalink. It was great in school when I had to wait 2 extra days to track down a DBA with a Metalink password just so I could install on Linux, and it's great that Database 10g EM won't work until after Sunday. ()
Seriously though, some of the patches on Metalink are critical to developers. No, we don't have an Oracle support contract, but Oracle wouldn't get very far without developers. Patches for the free downloads should be available, even if you have to register to get them. What's wrong with my OTN login, for instance? Why can't they just provide customer-specific files to customers through some other means (private FTP server comes to mind)? That would make developers happy AND prevent leeches from obtaining thousands of confidential files.
Why don't they just switch to Linux? end of security problem. The biggest fallacy in the world. Ken Thompson, credited with inventing UNIX, was quoted as saying "Microsoft is bad, but Linux is worse" sometime in 1999. I've worked with Linux for a long time, but I've come to realize that I like UNIX, not Linux. Linux has always had huge security problems, but it's based on UNIX, so everyone assumed that it was just evil Microsoft FUD. Realizing that Linux was as much a part of the problem as the solution took a long time.
I've run many Linux machines, the first one built in 1998. It was r00ted through a wu-ftpd exploit within 3 months of building it. Later Linux servers met similarly violent ends. IPFW bugs that cause the server to freeze when under certain network conditions, IPTables bugs that cause the server to freeze under certain network conditions, unstable desktop environments that randomly lose settings (GNOME & KDE equally), binary blob drivers that we trust 3rd-party vendors to make "just work", dozens of incompatible kernel versions, dozens of incompatible library versions. Buggy IDE drivers that erroneously reported problems with the disk. Buggy IDE drivers that erroneously failed to report problems with the disk. Buggy IDE drivers that randomly corrupted data... The litany is quite lengthy, and I could easily make it as long as the Windows litany.
Security is a Big Problem. It's an even bigger problem because lots of people assume they know what they're talking aobut when they don't. Anyone who claims that "Linux is the end of the security problem" doesn't understand the problem. The OS is such a small piece of the overall puzzle; please stop spreading the idea that you can solve all your security problems in one giant step.
What a pointless comparison. All that we see is that Windows has finally caught up with other Desktop OSs in security. Desktop systems are insecure, period, so who really cares about which one is more secure. I see that there's no BSD in the list, not a single IBM OS, VMS, or any other Mainframe OS. This report completely fails to illustrate any useful information. Insecure machines can be protected with firewalls which run secure OSs, none of which were in this list (OpenBSD, anyone?). About all that can be said is that Windows has finally found a way to protect itself from the meddling of idiots, at the cost of the most annoying security system ever invented. All that, and I still doubt that any sort of stability could be achieved on a network running these three OSs exclusively, without the protection of at least one OS not in this report.
Except that hosting an Internet domain could be construed as having broadcast equipment. Personally, I can't see how you have any honest intentions in hiding the fact that you are domain owner. Where do abuse reports get sent when someone starts sending spam using your domain name? What about take-down notices when someone posts copyrighted material on a website with your domain name? An Internet domain isn't a passive entity: it can be the source of a broadcast as well as the end-point. If you want to have an anonymous webspace, then use one of the many options that are available to you. The Internet is already too anonymous without domain owners being willing to take responsibility for their own domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should live somewhere where there is less than 6 hours of daylight during the shortest day of the year and see if you still have the same view. And don't forget that the sun won't set until after midnight during the summer. Hopefully you don't have to work too early the next day.
I never bought the "energy saving" crap anyway. Compared to what they were spending on the Iraq war, the figures they presented were pathetically low, especially given the effort to change it. All I had to do was look at all of the hardware clocks at home to realize what the real reason was: electronic warfare. Anyone that didn't pony up large chunks of change to the DST consultants had to deal with the embarassment (at a minimum) of having their clocks be out-of-whack for 3 full weeks. I'd imagine that most of the DST consultants were American, too. Let's add up all the consulting bills to fix this articificial problem to find out what the real economic driver was.
I despise the bastards who came up with this foolish idea. I wish that people were intelligent enough to realize that their government has once again lied to them about their motives. They should be demanding results for such an expensive implementation, and there is a conspicuous lack thereof. I, for one, can see through this transparent American malevolence. I only wish Canada would declare war so I could do something about it.
It's just like any other professional sport. There's slo-pitch and there's hardball. PvP WoW is definitely on the hardball end of the spectrum. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to play. Anyway, I really doubt that I'm going to be in any of these tournaments. Just watching these guys compete would be really exciting, let alone being part of the gig.
I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of how Intel's CISC can solve some really basic problems very well. I've only ever heard complaints from the "dinosaurs".
Definitely an interesting read. I'm glad there was a considerable technical discussion -- it laid some good groundwork for discussing very technical details among computer illerati. Curiously, the expert witness is very adamant about the fact that matching the IP address in the source header to the IP address received by the MediaSentry server was proof positive that there was no router being used. My understanding of NAT is a little different than his. I'm certain that my network traffic does not contain any evidence of what the internal IP is, and I'm pretty certain that most SOHO routers also eliminate any evidence of the private network (otherwise it wouldn't be private!). It is the source address part of the payload that is rewritten both when the packet is sent, and when the reply is received.
Sort of directed at Mr. Beckerman: I think these details are the clearest indication of the expert's limitations. You've already limited the scope of his 'expertise', and the complete lack of any documentation of the MediaSentry process, coupled with this expert's inability to prove that the wireless router in question didn't actually exist should force the MediaSentry process out into the open, or hopefully to be proven inadequate as an evidence-gathering tool.
That being said, there is a danger here that was brought up earlier: the idea that an account holder is not actually liable for their own account. That's a bad idea. I know the Internet is filled with anonymity and uncertainty, but making an Internet connection an ability to blame-shift your illicit online activities to 'some cracker' is a bad trend. Best is to start making ISPs more responsible for the security of their network. Funnily enough, despite the rampant abuse my server receives on a daily basis, none of it comes from Canadian or European networks; only American and Asian ones. Food for thought.
Now that's a BOFH trick if I ever heard one. Too bad that feature disappeared.
I really miss nimda.dll. Talk about a distributed backup network. Not to mention the depths of personal information I had access to.
I don't trust privacy policies. There's no laws that can be enforced if the company in question violates their own policy, and it's ridiculously hard to prove it even if they did. And, as you can see here, most privacy policies have a not-difficult-to-imagine scenario which would involve complete loss of control of the private information you did provide. I'd like to see more work done on making companies stick to their privacy policies, and large fines or jail time if they don't.
I am anti-American right now. This is something I decided after Americans (as a society, not individually) decided that they needed 4 more years of Bush. The first election I was willing to write off as a fraud, but the second one was the will of the people. I blame, in this order:
1) George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of their gang
2) Those who voted for Bush knowing full well what he stood for
3) Those who voted for Bush not knowing what he stood for (ignorance is not an excuse)
4) Those who didn't vote and would have voted against Bush (apathy is not an excuse)
5) Those who voted against Bush but didn't speak out against them (I know, it's not an easy thing to do)
6) Those who joined the army after 9/11 (yeah, you probably think you're fighting "terrorists" or bringing "freedom to the people", but you're just a tool of an evil, corrupt government)
Those of you who voted against Bush and are not afraid to publicly speak of his evil, I wish I could meet more of you. And to those who joined the American Army prior to all of this terrorism bullshit, I'm sorry you got used for the wrong reason.
Most of the world hates you right now. I'm not afraid to say it, and I think that the posts here should give you a pretty good indication that there's a multitude of reasons why. The good news is that it's difficult to imagine an American government that's more evil or more corrupt, so 2008 is almost definitely going to bring about an improvement. Unfortunately, that's still about 8 years too late.
Yeah, coz a bomb that can take out 16 city blocks has dozens of useful civilian applications.
Well, technically you would probably end up bombing the entire planet back into the stone age, or the return fire would. Luckily, I have prepared a cave with 47 computers and a satellite uplink high in the Canadian Rockies for such an eventuality. I'll still be playing WoW while you scrounge through nuclear waste for clothing and food.
What you DON'T welcome your new Nordic overlords? Don't make me come over there!
...some lawyer working for McCain who hasn't realised that laughing along with the joke is a lot more dignified than litigation? If there was an American politician who was capable of laughing at the joke these days, I'd say McCain would be the guy. Let's hope he takes the high road; it's a long campaign ahead of him.You got a reference for that? I understand "Slashvertisement" to mean an article posing as news being a means to advertise something/one else. My apologies for my ignorance.
The submitter is just pumping up clicks to his own site. You'll notice that he's also the author of TFA. I don't see that this is a particularly useful system, since you'd just be building binaries on another box anyway. If you're going to do that, you might as well just build an upgrade CD and upgrade through the normal process.
I've considered it, but there's a lot of barriers. First, you need enough evidence for a subpoena. That means that the chain of custody has to be preserved, and the crime scene needs to be secured by the police. Usually that means giving the compromised machines, relevant logs from monitoring equipment, etc. over to Law Enforcement for an indeterminate amount of time. I know I can't live without my servers for that long.
You need to get the subpoena to identify the person behind the attack. That assumes that your evidence actually points to a specific suspect. Unless your attacker was a complete moron, or your network logs are incredibly voluminous, that's not very likely. Once the subpoena is served and you've got your suspect and laid charges, you need to present evidence. That requires an expert witness. If you're lucky, YOU are the expert witness, but there's training and certification involved in that process. Otherwise, you get to hire an expert witness, and that won't be cheap. Your opponent will probably hire an opposing expert, just to confuse everybody.
Overall, I'd say that chances of success are incredibly low. Legal fees will be very high, and you have to turn over a fair chunk of your network assets to Law Enforcement. Basically, if you aren't really, really sure that you've got your man, it's really not worth the time and effort to find out who it was. That effort is much better spent allowing you to sleep at night knowing that people aren't getting in, IMO.
I've dealt with a couple security breaches in the past. It's never easy, and there's always that feeling of being violated as well. The important thing is to not lose your head about it, or you'll make mistakes that could lead to another or worse breach.
First, find out the extent of the breach. Analyze your log files. Find out what time it happened. Find out who was logged in at the time, and find out any log messages from any system services that can help you figure out what the problem was. If you can't figure out what the scope of the breach was with a high level of confidence, then you have to assume the worst: the entire network is compromised.
Second, salvage what you can. Again, be very careful about doing this. Hopefully you have a backup somewhere which would allow you to avoid or shorten this step as much as possible. In essence, do what you have to do to the compromised machine to avoid losing work, but always be concious of the fact that the machine is compromised, and may be transmitting or recording keylogs or other sensitive information. If possible, disconnect the compromised machines from the Internet and isolate it from the rest of your LAN.
Third, plan for the future. How would this breach be avoided in the future? Was it an OS problem? If so, then maybe you need to install OpenBSD instead. Was it a problem with a particular package you were using? Choose a different package. Can you configure your firewall or server to prevent or limit the abuse that caused the problem in the first place (e.g. fail2ban to deal with SSH phishing attacks) or install monitoring software to alert you of a problem (e.g. an IDS like Snort)? Do your users need further training? Does your password policy allow weak passwords? Etc.
Finally, take a deep breath. Unless you've been totally negligent in your job, there wasn't much you could do to prevent it. Don't worry about the fact that you don't have enough to go to the police; most Network Administrators don't have the hardware, training or certification to present evidence in a courtroom anyway. If you can go to the cops, then bully for you! Make that black-hat asshole pay!
Oh please. You want an easy solution. They want more than an easy solution, they want to shift the burden from where it has been rightfully placed: with the content creator. It has always been required for a creator to be vigilant in protecting their copyright; it is a valid defense to show that the creator isn't protecting it. Now that the job has gotten difficult they want to somehow centralize it, write a search engine and magically remove only the infringing content and sue only the infringing parties. Sorry, but they need to write the search engine themselves and prove to a court that it doesn't produce any false positives.
Well, it's not for everyone, that's for sure. I've gotten really interested in mouse gestures of late though, especially on the touchpad for my laptop. It has a "Click-lock" feature which allows me to click and drag using only the touchpad. The gesture took a little bit of effort, and it's certainly not for little stubby fingers, but totally worth it. I love having an ultra-sensitive touchpad, and the addition of this gesture allows me to avoid the clumsiness of holding down the button with my thumb while dragging stuff across my desktop. I need only one button on my touchpad now: the one that pops up the context menu.
NVIDIA had a mouse gesture for switching between desktops a while back, whipping the mouse around in a circle clockwise or counterclockwise depending on which desktop you wanted to use. It wasn't great -- I had a hard time getting the sensitivity exactly right -- but it was a novel way to control the computer. I hope to see more developments like this; I'm sure most of us hacker types that have great keyboarding skills will get a lot of use out of more flexible, customizable mouse control.
I love not being able to access Metalink. It was great in school when I had to wait 2 extra days to track down a DBA with a Metalink password just so I could install on Linux, and it's great that Database 10g EM won't work until after Sunday. ()
Seriously though, some of the patches on Metalink are critical to developers. No, we don't have an Oracle support contract, but Oracle wouldn't get very far without developers. Patches for the free downloads should be available, even if you have to register to get them. What's wrong with my OTN login, for instance? Why can't they just provide customer-specific files to customers through some other means (private FTP server comes to mind)? That would make developers happy AND prevent leeches from obtaining thousands of confidential files.
I've run many Linux machines, the first one built in 1998. It was r00ted through a wu-ftpd exploit within 3 months of building it. Later Linux servers met similarly violent ends. IPFW bugs that cause the server to freeze when under certain network conditions, IPTables bugs that cause the server to freeze under certain network conditions, unstable desktop environments that randomly lose settings (GNOME & KDE equally), binary blob drivers that we trust 3rd-party vendors to make "just work", dozens of incompatible kernel versions, dozens of incompatible library versions. Buggy IDE drivers that erroneously reported problems with the disk. Buggy IDE drivers that erroneously failed to report problems with the disk. Buggy IDE drivers that randomly corrupted data... The litany is quite lengthy, and I could easily make it as long as the Windows litany.
Security is a Big Problem. It's an even bigger problem because lots of people assume they know what they're talking aobut when they don't. Anyone who claims that "Linux is the end of the security problem" doesn't understand the problem. The OS is such a small piece of the overall puzzle; please stop spreading the idea that you can solve all your security problems in one giant step.
What a pointless comparison. All that we see is that Windows has finally caught up with other Desktop OSs in security. Desktop systems are insecure, period, so who really cares about which one is more secure. I see that there's no BSD in the list, not a single IBM OS, VMS, or any other Mainframe OS. This report completely fails to illustrate any useful information. Insecure machines can be protected with firewalls which run secure OSs, none of which were in this list (OpenBSD, anyone?). About all that can be said is that Windows has finally found a way to protect itself from the meddling of idiots, at the cost of the most annoying security system ever invented. All that, and I still doubt that any sort of stability could be achieved on a network running these three OSs exclusively, without the protection of at least one OS not in this report.
Except that hosting an Internet domain could be construed as having broadcast equipment. Personally, I can't see how you have any honest intentions in hiding the fact that you are domain owner. Where do abuse reports get sent when someone starts sending spam using your domain name? What about take-down notices when someone posts copyrighted material on a website with your domain name? An Internet domain isn't a passive entity: it can be the source of a broadcast as well as the end-point. If you want to have an anonymous webspace, then use one of the many options that are available to you. The Internet is already too anonymous without domain owners being willing to take responsibility for their own domain.