[thelist] what is this scam?

[David U.]

Joel Canfield wrote:
> I'll answer that with another question: why are most of the defaults
> on a Unix system to allow, rather than deny? What's the differenct?

Your unix is not my unix.  Are you using AT&T's unix? (err SCO, err Caldera,
wait; what's UNIX again?)

> Unix is by default an open system; defaults for new files,
> directories, etc. are permissive rather than exclusive.

If your server is broken and behaving this way you should probably fix it.
*grin*

> Obviously,
> I'm not saying *nix isn't secure, but default installations tend
> toward openness until someone tightens things up.

Maybe your Mandrake linux or Redhat CD is setup like this but that has
nothing to do with the kernel and basic userlevel tools which are NOT often
setup like that by default.

check out:
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.openbsd.org
http://www.debian.org
http://www.gentoo.org


> Is it bad and wrong that Windows is the same way? (in this specific
> regard, not re: security in general; I'm not ignerrunt enough to
> defend Windows security in general)

Typical home windows users with broadband are total morons.  Should we do
anything about it?  Yes.

I'd put the burden on the cable and DSL companies to start filtering netbios
and spoofed-source packets on their networks rather than make windows "more
secure" by default.  I'm pretty happy with how XP performs as a desktop
machine.

-davidu