22 Aug
2008
22 Aug
'08
9:53 a.m.
On Monday 18 Aug 2008 18:11, Surya Pratap wrote:
Erach wrote:
Partly right. But the windows kernel itself is riddled with holes some
diliberate some due to various backward compatibility issues. That
apart security by obscurity is a known evil security practice.
therefore not having the source available for scrutiny as well as
patching is a strict NO for anything concerned with security.
JTD replied whose reply I intepret as follows
that Windows (am I
correct ---- does not have a secure kernel like UNIX)---- then
how is Windows security done.
Actually JTD's answer meant that the kernel and user space memory
allocation are well defined in linux and not so much in windows
this means that user run programs are less likely to affect a
system's security in linux than it is in windows (correct me if I
am wrong)
> Now, for all over Mumbai/INDIA, WIFI can we say that we have to
> have a secure kernel ---- for banks can one advocate a "develop
> new applications / enhancements over LINUX development tool with
> Windows running on top of LINUX using the emulator VIRTUALBOX
> which is open source).
Virtulization does not solve the security issue. Virtualization merely
provides the ability to better utilise hardware and manpower.
--
Rgds
JTD