Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Senator Bedfellow
Sure. Lemme get out my copy of FreeBSD Server Edition (TM), rather than Desktop Edition (TM)...err, wait. There isn't any such thing.

Not for FreeBSD, but there is for OS X. Since we don't know the exact exploit used, we don't know if it works on Server too. This isn't as big as the difference between NT4 (server) and Windows 98 (client), but it's bigger than the difference between NT 3.51 Server and Workstation (the only difference there being registry entries that restricted Workstation, Microsoft made it a bit harder for NT 4 but it's still doable).

Face it, all OSs are a race against hackers. At any one time, any OS will have known and unknown vulnerabilities, patched and unpatched. What matters is the reaction time to fix once notified and the number/severity of the vulnerabilities for the roles you're using. Anything else is just playing games.

104 posted on 03/07/2006 1:41:31 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: antiRepublicrat
Wait, wait. So far, you're telling me what the difference is not - it's not the same as the difference between 98 and NT, or the same as the difference between NT Server and NT Workstation - but you're not telling me what the difference is. What's the difference between Server and diet OS X, and why would we expect that difference to have an impact on security? And if it really is the case that Server is measurably more secure for local users than vanilla OS X, why isn't the desktop version incorporating those measures?
105 posted on 03/07/2006 1:47:21 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson