21 Aug
2006
21 Aug
'06
11:52 p.m.
On Aug 21, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Alexey Toptygin wrote:
Ahhh, somebody doesn't know how widely deployed VMS systems are, but
I won't point any fingers!
So what you're saying is that VMS is more widely deployed than systems
that _were_ compromised at defcon 9? More than Win32, Solaris, Linux,
*BSD? And where are these millions of VMS deployments? I'm the
secretary of a DC metro area system administrators group (>300
members), and I've only heard of one VMS system in the DC area
mentioned in our group over the 5+ years I've been a member. They were
migrating off of it.
I'm not saying there aren't VMS deployments, but I think you're saying
they're comprably common to Windows, Mac or UNIX and everything I know
tells me that is wrong.
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. VMS is not cracker-kiddie-resistant because it's obscure...it's
cracker-kiddie-resistant because it's well-written.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
>>>
[I'm intensely interested in this as to how it can be done
>>> to make applications in consumer devices "hacker hardened"]
>> Run VMS ;-)
> Bt, is that truly "hacker proof" or "hardened by obscurity"?
:>
hacker proof. Just google for "vms defcon 9"
The fact that no-one at
defcon 9 knows VMS well enough to break into
a VMS box says nothing of the security of VMS; it only says
something about it's popularity.