[Info-vax] 2009 VMS Bootcamp notice

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <ut0kn4dq39mlilmc71n4e0p3l4scd7hmkq at 4ax.com>,
	jls <notvalid at yahoo.com> writes:
> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:11 GMT, billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> wrote:
> 
>>  There are millions and millions of Windows boxes out
>>there.  A hacked Windows box sells newspapers and magazines.  A Windows
>>success story does not.  We are being innundated now with stories of
>>"4.9 million" Windows boxes infected with a worm that MS published a
>>fix for months ago.  So, who's fault is it that these machines are now
>>getting infected?  Windows? MS? Or is it maybe closer to home.  (Hint:
>>none of the machines under my control have been hit nor are they even
>>vulnerable.  Go figure!)
> 
> Well, now you're changing the argument.  At first you said that a
> windows or unix system sitting there not being patched is just as
> secure as a vms system in the same state of maintenace.  This would
> seem to contradict that notion, at least for Windows.

The unattended system was strictly a Unix vs. VMS example.  Someone said
they had a VMS machine that had not been touched in 5 years and you couldn't
do that with Unix.  I merely posted a counter example where I have, in fact,
done that with Unix.

I never said that Windows could be left untouched.  In fact, I was one
of the quickest to openly state that Windows, as shipped, is extremely
insecure and does need to be secured.  And, that it is not as difficult
as people here say and it is well documented what has to be done.  The
problem is not one of technical shortcomings or lack of knowledge, it
is one of apathy.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>