Re: Re[2]: Introduction
Dan Stromberg (strombrg@hydra.acs.uci.edu)
Wed, 07 Feb 1996 16:10:02 -0800
Indeed, one might, with a reasonable sense of balance, indicate that:
1) a system with myriad known security holes is less secure than a
system with few or no known security holes - in practice. A specific
example of this is SunOS 4.1.x, which is full of holes, vs. Solaris 2.x,
which is relatively secure (in fact, in these terms, quite a bit more
so).
...and...
2) _any_ OS, not solely those from Sun, is vulnerable to the
_possibility_ of breakins, whether there are any known holes or not.
Minor apologies - I realize this has little to do with intrusion
_detection_.
Barney, Larry wrote:
>
> Probably what he should have said is that many security fixes having
> to do with known problems went into the Solaris 2.5.
>
> That is not to say that they didn't open up any more holes or that
> there are not many other holes still yet undiscovered or reported.
>
> Larry Barney
>
> [Quoted Article Deleted]