Re: The importance of IVs

On 27 Aug 2005 18:26:37 -0700, tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:

>It isn't that easy. Some applications need VM [which disabling swap
>removes to a certain extent] to run.

Nonsense.
Applications need memory -- plain and simple.
Whether that memory is physical or virtual is transparent and
irrelevant to the application. As long as there's enough available
memory, that's all the application cares about.

>The real problem is Windows. No "security conscience" user would
>bother using windows aside from those who think "$VENDOR Anti Virus
>makes me more secure!".

More nonsense.
My home Windows machine is more secure than any non-Windows machine
you'd find out there. That's because if you know what you're doing,
you can secure Windows to the point where you can't touch it short of
having physical access to the machine, in which case any machine is
equally insecure, regardless of the operating system.

Linux is no more secure than Windows, just like Mac OS is no more
secure, just like [insert whatever here] is no more secure. The only
reason Windows is subject to more attacks -- and therefore perceived
to be less secure -- is because it's being used on 95% of all
computers in the world.

If Linux was being used on 95% of all computers in the world, then 95%
of all attacks would be directed at Linux, in which case it would be
just as "insecure" as Windows.
Received on Thu Sep 29 21:51:16 2005