Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3100 mails)

[Adam Tauno Williams <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I don't know if COM and DCOM comes from CORBA,

It doesn't.

>With COM and ActivX the API gives your app access to the memory space
>of the ActiveX component, which again use a shared system bus.
>If you plug into the Windows system bus, you can see all messages gong
>around.  You can intercept messages meant for other applications,

Complete rubbish.  Windows is a full fledged protected mode OS,  
applications are very much shielded from each other  -  yes, I believe 
Linux is superior but due to differences far more subtle then you are 
describing.

>With the message busses used on *nix systems you cannot do that,
>because there are diferent busses and you can only access what the bus
>allow you to see.

This statement is so vague as to be meaningless.  And many of the messaging 
technologies used by X-windows environments over the years have been 
horribly insecure.

>>     Look at technology common to Windows & *nix, say Java: how much less
>> secure is Java on Windows than Gnunix?
>Very much.  Due to the common message bus that Windows use, the java
>application potentially have access to any other application,

Bogus.

>>     What started this conversation no one has addressed: the primitive
>> [absent] interactive GUI "Firewall" technology available on Windows.
>I think you are still not getting the point.

I think YOU are entirely missing the point.   An interactive firewall 
IS	EASIER TO USE!  Otherwise apps silently fail to work - this has nothing 
whatsoever to do with worms,  viruses, trojans, etc...  It has to do with 
informing the poor user what is going on.  Lack of such a feature on the 
LINUX desktop IS a deficiency no matter how you want to spin it.  Like no 
feedback for offline print queues and the inability to edit filesystem ACLs 
in the GUI.

>You percieve Linux as being primitive because it does not feature a
>useless application that can only give you a false sense of security.

I don't percieve the LINUX desktop as primitive,  but it certainly has 
functionality gaps that still need closing.  This is a legitimate user need.

>The point is that you should first look at where the real threats are
>on a Linux system and then think from that angle.

The inability of the system to INFORM the user that it blocked an 
applications attempt tp communicate is NOT a "security" problem,  it is a 
usability problem.

>On Linux you should NOT focus on a tool that can tell you that you
>HAVE ALREADY been compromised.

Because an app is trying to open a port means you've been comprimised?  
Again - Bogus.