Astronomy cast

[yourmommycalled]

On Sep 7, 11:11*pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

Let's see if I can get through to you. To start I do not count
instances where the hacker has had physical access to the machine as
given free access to the machine only hardware restrictions, like
filling everything but moving parts with epoxy, can prevent a hack. In
the last 12 years there have been only two times when an OpenBSD based
system has been compromised when connected to the internet. I really
don't whether you want to compare a brand-spanking new XP-sp2 system
to to a 12 year old release 1.0 or a current release 4.5. The only
importance attached to 12 years is that is how long OpenBSD has been
in the wild. How many known compromises of an OpenBSD system? Answer
two occurrences. Can you say the same about windows xp? Before you
answer you might consider a CERT advisory that says that an un-patched
vulnerability in Microsoft's implementation of SMB2 (Server Message
Block),that needs no authentication, only file sharing enabled with
one packet to create a BSOD [Blue Screen of Death] The recommendation
is to block port 445 on ALL MACHINES. Seems a recent patch open that
vulnerability

[Chris L Peterson]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:32:25 -0700 (PDT), yourmommycalled
<mommycalled@gmail.com> wrote:


Well, use what you want, for whatever reasons you want. I didn't say
that Windows was more secure than OpenBSD. What I said is that it is
secure- a simple statement of fact. And I said that as the *nix
operating systems start catching up to Windows in terms of their
features and capabilities, the added complexity makes them more
vulnerable, while vast improvements in the Windows security structure
continue to make it less vulnerable. I expect that all operating systems
will converge on the same general level of high, but not perfect
security- and not very far in the future.

In the meantime, I don't think security is a valid reason anymore to
choose or not choose any particular OS.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

[Martin Brown]

Davoud wrote:

There are generic Intel PCs that will run OS/X. I have a friend who is
an expert at installing OS/X on non-Mac hardware. Medions have a fairly
good reputation as generic Mac OS capable cheap PCs. Snow Leopard runs
fine. You need the right matching chipsets and the odd tweak but it is
possible. I have seen it done many times. Not for beginners though.

But I expect the FBI's IT dept ought to be able to hack it.

Regards,
Martin

[yourmommycalled]

On Sep 8, 9:53*pm, Dave Typinski <möb...@trapezium.net> wrote:


As I pointed out earlier, only very specific windows products are C3
level certified, hence they only can be used in secure facilities when
it is physically impossible for the system to be connected to the
Internet. All other versions of windows can not meet any Orange book
level of security. As far as other OS's as concerned the secure
systems typically run OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, or Linux. It is a matter
of creating special versions of the OS or needing some special level
of intelligence, it is just that windows is so poorly designed,
implemented and written that is nearly impossible to secure the
systems from a compromise. As I noted earlier a single malformed
packet on the network will result in a windows system crash (BSOD) if
port 445 (windows filesharing) is open, yet Mac-OSX, Solaris, AIX,
HPUX etc, which all support windows filesharing on port 445 will
simply ignore the malformed packet.

[yourmommycalled]

On Sep 8, 11:12*am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

I'd like some of the drugs that you are taking! Exactly what software/
features are you talking about? You cann't be talking about CCD
imaging or photometry (IRAF as an example) software as the
professional grade software was created on and always been available
Unix systems and only recently have been stripped down enough to be
put on windows, but only when a unix environment is overlayed on top
of windows. GIMP is superior to the current versions of photoshop,
OpenOffice provides exactly the same functionality with a much smaller
memory footprint. Stellarium provides a more realistic sky view than
any windows platform software and is used in commercial products
(StarLab). Xephem is easier to use than any of the windows software,
the only "improvement" is the eyecandy. The software that comes with
Mac-OS for digital cameras, and music players is orders of magnitude
better than anything that comes with or you can buy for windows and I
don't know of digital camera or printer that doesn't work with Solaris/
AIX/HPUX/Linux out of the box. So exactly what is it that windows
gives me over anything else? Oh I know a host of security problems.

Your statement "I don't think security is a valid reason anymore to
choose or not choose any particular OS." indicates that you aren't
aware of security hazards and probably shouldn't be managing systems.

[Sam Wormley]

Davoud wrote:

Recent Analysis of Risk
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7129
http://www.sans.org/top-cyber-security-risks