Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly
From: David Webb (david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk)
Date: 04/22/03
- Next message: Richard Brodie: "Re: could not access disk"
- Previous message: Mark E. Levy: "AlphaPC164"
- In reply to: David Webb: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Next in thread: jmfbahciv@aol.com: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: jmfbahciv@aol.com: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: JF Mezei: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: David Webb: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: David Webb: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk (David Webb) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:15:29 +0000 (UTC)
In article <b83agv$cbm$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>In article <b810ju$ptq$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>,
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk (David Webb) wrote:
>>In article <b80in2$rgo$6@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>>In article <3EA365D0.3090804@tsoft-inc.com>,
>>> David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <00A1BAF7.D4960A23@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
>>>>> winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU says...
>>>>
>>>>>>>There are problems with Windows, but blame it for what it does, not
>for
>>>>>>>what applications running under it do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I blame Microsoft in general, but Windows both has vulnerabilities of
>>>its
>>>>>>own and enables vulnerabilities in application software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every OS has vulnerabilities. If you think they don't you are
>deluding
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As for that, please direct me to any vulnerabilities in VMS. People
>keep
>>>>claiming that every OS has problems, but when asked, never
>>>>seem able to point to
>>>>any for VMS.
>>>
>>>Well, it helped to have the OS run on college computers who had
>>>maintenance service contracts. Those college critters were
>>>real good at finding all the little cracks in the security wall.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, that aspect of the computing doesn't happen since
>>>everybody has their own system and don't have the challenge
>>>of defying an Establishment system.
>>>
>>
>>Even in Universities where teaching of computing is decentralised so each
>>school has their own systems there will still be centralised systems for
>>Administration.
>>For that matter the individual department/systems whether VMS, Unix or
>Windows
>>fileservers, compute servers, mail servers etc will still be a target.
>>
>>The administrative systems particularly those containing student records
>will
>>be a particular target.
>>
>>Having a system on software/hardware maintenance doesn't help very much
>when it
>>comes to security. Security issues are generally handled outside of such
>>support contracts. Once a vulnerablity becomes known it is in the vendors
>best
>>interest to provide a fix for all vulnerable systems irrespective of their
>>support contract status. It's possible that if you have a support contract
>you
>>may get a heads up from the vendor before you hear about it from other
>sources.
>>However knowing about the vulnerability and fix is only half of the
>solution.
>>The other half is being able to apply the patches. Unfortunately with some
>OSs
>>the frequency of security problems means that it is politically impossible
>>to apply the patches in a timely fashion - you would be taking the system
>down
>>every few days.
>
>SIGH! How did the vendor _find out_ about problems? Within DEC,
>the mechanism was through the support organization.
>
>You should find out how those SPRs were handled in the olden days.
>
Although people with support contracts would report problems through the SPR
mechanism I am pretty sure that DEC would treat any report of of a security
problem as a serious issue however it was reported. The fact that the person
who reports a problem doesn't have a support contract should be irrelevent if
it is a security problem.
Nowadays I would hope that a report of a security vulnerability from a hobbyist
would be treated just as seriously by HP as a report of a vulnerability from
a customer with a maintenance contract.
David Webb
VMS and Unix team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>/BAH
>
>Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
- Next message: Richard Brodie: "Re: could not access disk"
- Previous message: Mark E. Levy: "AlphaPC164"
- In reply to: David Webb: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Next in thread: jmfbahciv@aol.com: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: jmfbahciv@aol.com: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: JF Mezei: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: David Webb: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Reply: David Webb: "Re: IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM monopoly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|