This 'security' risk is nothing specific to the Windows world. It is not that hard to do the exact same thing on Unix. (There are several programs availble to do this on Linux and BSD...)
Any mildly compitant sys admin would know not to run random files on the server, so as long as the admin isn't dumb, the system is secure.
WinNT is just as secure, if not more secure, than most Unix systems. I see hundreds of new exploits for Unix systems every week, but much fewer available for NT.
I obtained a copy of BO 2000, and I was unable to get it to run on NT. I tried it on 3 seperate NT systems including 2 copies of Workstation, and 1 of Server. It gave me the same illegal operation on all three systems.
It did, however, copy it's key to the registry, and move itself to the WinNT directory. Each time I started up, however, I got a blue screen with the error, and after I hit enter, the system booted normally.
I have a feeling that BO 2000 *may* run on NT, but I couldn't get it to work.
BO 2000 ran great on Win98, and 95... and there are some nice improvements.
I personally think that BO is dumb. Designing this program to comprimise a system that isn't designed to be secure is rediculous. It simply shows the childish tendancies of many hackers.
First off... nick names are just that... nick names. You can attack me personally, but you can't avoid the facts.
Second, I am not talking about the Mindcraft tests. I am talking about the PC-Week tests, which all who were involved (including Linux experts from Red Hat) said were fair.
I think this is the first time anything like this has happened.
None of you are crying fowl.
I am very happy to see that the Linux community can see when they have to stop whining, and start programming.
I think Linux has a lot of potential as a enterprise level server. But that's all it is. Potential. Without people willing to take the time to make use of that potential, Linux will die.
I can't wait to see the rematch. And I congratulate NT on it's victory.
Wow... I am always impressed, er... dissapointed is a better word, with the lashing out and personal attacks on anybody who even suggests that Windows will have the upper hand in the future. First off, Linux makes up less than 1% of the market. That's a fact. I am not saying that Linux doesn't deserve more... it does. I am constantly surprised at the evolution that Linux has undergone in the past few years. I often wonder whether any of you even start to question your Linux following... whether or not you, the independant Linux user - free of the MS brain washing, have not been brain washed your selves. Have any of you taken a look at the feature sets or possible benefits of Win2k? I have... and I am impressed. I have also talked to beta testers who are very excited about Win2k, and the new directions MS is moving in concerning reliability and size. MS has made mistakes... we all have. But if you are going to succeed in the info tech world, you need to learn to consider all options.
Use software not because of who or who doesn't make it, but because it's the best choice for your situation.
Slashdot Mirror
This 'security' risk is nothing specific to the Windows world. It is not that hard to do the exact same thing on Unix. (There are several programs availble to do this on Linux and BSD...)
Any mildly compitant sys admin would know not to run random files on the server, so as long as the admin isn't dumb, the system is secure.
WinNT is just as secure, if not more secure, than most Unix systems. I see hundreds of new exploits for Unix systems every week, but much fewer available for NT.
I obtained a copy of BO 2000, and I was unable to get it to run on NT. I tried it on 3 seperate NT systems including 2 copies of Workstation, and 1 of Server. It gave me the same illegal operation on all three systems.
It did, however, copy it's key to the registry, and move itself to the WinNT directory. Each time I started up, however, I got a blue screen with the error, and after I hit enter, the system booted normally.
I have a feeling that BO 2000 *may* run on NT, but I couldn't get it to work.
BO 2000 ran great on Win98, and 95... and there are some nice improvements.
I personally think that BO is dumb. Designing this program to comprimise a system that isn't designed to be secure is rediculous. It simply shows the childish tendancies of many hackers.
Why hack SETI? The only purpose SETI has is to further mankind. Those who choose to hack should choose more wisely.
While I am sure that your personal experince is valid, this was a very large survey.
Why would the people in the survey lie? What would it serve them?
Why would you lie? Perhaps to continue the Linux hype as long as possible before it dies.
Since this was the only NT related topic, I will post this here.
4 05201,00.html
The most common lie I see on this site is that NT is unstable. Here are some FACTS:
How Often Users Reboot (including force reboots due to crashes)
Every 6 Months or More
61%
Every 3 to 6 Months
18%
Every 1 to 3 Months
11%
Monthly
6%
Weekly
3%
Daily
Less than 1%
Those are FACTS... scream all you want, it won't change anything.
You can see the rest of the facts here:
http://www.zdnet.com/pccomp/stories/all/0,6605,
Oh... this study was NOT FUNDED by MS. So don't bother screaming that common reply.
You would figure a message board full of Linux babies would be able to figure out that 128MB x 8 is indeed 1 GIG of RAM.
Stick to your shell scripts boys...
First off... nick names are just that... nick names. You can attack me personally, but you can't avoid the facts.
Second, I am not talking about the Mindcraft tests. I am talking about the PC-Week tests, which all who were involved (including Linux experts from Red Hat) said were fair.
You are proving my point with every reply...
Well... I was wrong with my first comment.
Some of you still feel the need to whine.
Next time, I will refresh the window before I post my comments.
Perhaps some of you will grow up eventually.
I think this is the first time anything like this has happened.
None of you are crying fowl.
I am very happy to see that the Linux community can see when they have to stop whining, and start programming.
I think Linux has a lot of potential as a enterprise level server. But that's all it is. Potential. Without people willing to take the time to make use of that potential, Linux will die.
I can't wait to see the rematch. And I congratulate NT on it's victory.
Wow... I am always impressed, er... dissapointed is a better word, with the lashing out and personal attacks on anybody who even suggests that Windows will have the upper hand in the future. First off, Linux makes up less than 1% of the market. That's a fact. I am not saying that Linux doesn't deserve more... it does. I am constantly surprised at the evolution that Linux has undergone in the past few years.
I often wonder whether any of you even start to question your Linux following... whether or not you, the independant Linux user - free of the MS brain washing, have not been brain washed your selves.
Have any of you taken a look at the feature sets or possible benefits of Win2k? I have... and I am impressed. I have also talked to beta testers who are very excited about Win2k, and the new directions MS is moving in concerning reliability and size.
MS has made mistakes... we all have. But if you are going to succeed in the info tech world, you need to learn to consider all options.
Use software not because of who or who doesn't make it, but because it's the best choice for your situation.
Food for thought...