22 Aug
2006
22 Aug
'06
9:44 p.m.
On 22/8/06 19:49, "Alexey Toptygin" <alexeyt at freeshell.org> wrote:
This is a bit like saying [Blithe statement alert] ?The BMW M5 is unproven
> Sigh. I
didn't say anything other than what I typed above. The world is
> full of misguided and/or clueless people who think VMS is "old",
"dead",
> "legacy" or some other such nonsense, while in fact it is extremely
widely
> used...just not in places that we hear about every day.
OK, now I think you're being unreasonable. Who, pray tell, has these vast
secret VMS installations that we don't hear about? Show me the VAXen.
> VMS is not cracker-kiddie-resistant because
it's obscure...it's
> cracker-kiddie-resistant because it's well-written.
I don't think it's fair for you to make this claim. There are millions of
known Windows, Mac and UNIX internet-facing computers that are under
attack every day. There are significantly fewer VAXen (100 times fewer?
1000? 10000 wouldn't surprise me), which are attacked significantly less
frequently.
You could be right, VMS could be very securely written; but until it has
been tested by throwing the same volume of script kiddies at it as other
OSen have had thrown at them you can't make any security claims based on
relative number of breakins.
Alexey from an engineering point of view because not enough
have been made to show
categorically that the wheels wont fall off during high speed
cornering?.
I believe that what Dave?s referring to is that VMS is superior from an *
architectural * standpoint. This makes it less vulnerable to attack, hence
its DEFCON kudos. I don?t need a 1000 pass experiment to know that mud is
less likely to stick to glass than a splintered plank. ;-)
-Austin.