<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will Microsoft kill the security sector?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelgracie.com/2006/06/29/will-microsoft-kill-the-security-sector/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/06/29/will-microsoft-kill-the-security-sector/</link>
	<description>Clever Tagline Unavailable At Publication Time</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Gracie</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/06/29/will-microsoft-kill-the-security-sector/#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gracie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelgracie.com/will-microsoft-kill-the-security-sector/#comment-205</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;While there are some that would disagree with your first notion, so be it.  But, some points to consider:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) if everyone started using Linux and OS X (or another UNIX flavor), hackers would still have to focus their attention on a subset of a subset of UNIX;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2) as long as Windows needs to be all things to all people, they are still going to have to deal with a myriad of devices/drivers/processes that they don't have complete control over;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;...freewheeling administrative access and executable embedding in registries aside, which are design issues, are they not?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of course, I still have to wonder, with all the Linux/UNIX flavored servers running in the world, why they aren't getting blown to bits every day.  Or are they, and sys admins either aren't paying attention or are too embarrassed to disclose it?  I suspect there are a lot of sysadmins that would be insulted by either notion.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While there are some that would disagree with your first notion, so be it.  But, some points to consider:</p>
<p>1) if everyone started using Linux and OS X (or another UNIX flavor), hackers would still have to focus their attention on a subset of a subset of UNIX;</p>
<p>2) as long as Windows needs to be all things to all people, they are still going to have to deal with a myriad of devices/drivers/processes that they don&#8217;t have complete control over;</p>
<p>&#8230;freewheeling administrative access and executable embedding in registries aside, which are design issues, are they not?</p>
<p>Of course, I still have to wonder, with all the Linux/UNIX flavored servers running in the world, why they aren&#8217;t getting blown to bits every day.  Or are they, and sys admins either aren&#8217;t paying attention or are too embarrassed to disclose it?  I suspect there are a lot of sysadmins that would be insulted by either notion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/06/29/will-microsoft-kill-the-security-sector/#comment-204</link>
		<dc:creator>e</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelgracie.com/will-microsoft-kill-the-security-sector/#comment-204</guid>
		<description>The argument that unix and mac operating systems are more secure because they are better designed is a fallacy as old as the hills.  
What makes them more secure is the lack of their commercial appeal. Yhe virus writers and the people who spend hours hacking away at every element of the operating system aren't going to focus their attention on a subset of a subset of unix, they are going to focus their attention on the big prize, the operating system used in over 80% of home computers world wide. Look at the 2003 vulnerability in sendmail, it hadn't been discovered not because it was any harder to find than one of windows flaws but simply because people just weren't looking. If everyone switched to alternatives then the virus protection market for macos and unix would increase a thousandfold overnight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The argument that unix and mac operating systems are more secure because they are better designed is a fallacy as old as the hills.<br />
What makes them more secure is the lack of their commercial appeal. Yhe virus writers and the people who spend hours hacking away at every element of the operating system aren&#8217;t going to focus their attention on a subset of a subset of unix, they are going to focus their attention on the big prize, the operating system used in over 80% of home computers world wide. Look at the 2003 vulnerability in sendmail, it hadn&#8217;t been discovered not because it was any harder to find than one of windows flaws but simply because people just weren&#8217;t looking. If everyone switched to alternatives then the virus protection market for macos and unix would increase a thousandfold overnight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
