Registered: Sep, 2005
Re: Microsoft Under Attack
Posted: Jun 8, 2006 9:08 AM
> I don't want to waste your time and mine so I won't rehash
> these arguments further, but I do owe you the answer to
> your last question.
I just want to say that I felt you were assigning meaning to my statements that were not there. I apologize if I responded to forcefully. But I do appreciate and value your comments on this topic.
> > So what is your assessment of the relative security of
> > and MS.
> I don't know. Without an objective standard, how can we
> draw valid conclusions?
> I will say that I think it's plausible (although not
> proven), that MS's security is improving simply because
> they have been focusing on it. That doesn't mean that they
> have a great security process or the best security
> I'm rather a process-agnositic guy, but I guess that I'm
> willing to buy into the idea that if you increase your
> focus on a particular area, it's more likely to improve.
> The counter-argument, at least for Vista, is that the
> increased size and complexity of the OS may decrease its
> security and stability to the extent that improved
> security focus might be cancelled out.
Ironically, I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote here.