[olug] OT: security through antiquity

[DYNATRON tech]

>
> Anyway, Schneier's comment on the subject was that reviewed code was more
> secure than unreviewed code, even if binary exact.  I think it has more to
> do with a 'trust' and possibly psychological stuffs.



it's because you know what you are getting.

would you eat something if you didn't know what was in it?


On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Sam Tetherow <tetherow at shwisp.net> wrote:

> Even if it didn't have malware, would you really want to go back to the
> days of Trumpet WinSOCK?
>
> Sam Tetherow
> Sandhills Wireless
>
> Phil Brutsche wrote:
> > Will Langford wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose ya could make an argument that 'through antiquity' is just a
> >> special case of 'through obscurity' ...
> >>
> >
> > Is it?
> >
> > This particular article talks about IE5 running on... wait for it...
> > Windows 3.1!
> >
> > Windows 3.1 has no security mechanisms what-so-ever and I'm sure that
> > it's chock full of buffer overruns and stack overflows and ..., but how
> > much malware will run outside of Win32?
> >
> > It's similar to one of the arguments for running MacOS or Linux.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>



-- 
dynatron digital services
box 191 - 68037
www.dynatron.org
dynatron at gmail.com