Question regarding an article from Microsft Hellas's CEO

[Bernhard Kaindl]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Giannis Stoilis wrote:

> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > Have you tried to contact AntiVirus makers? Maybe even AntiVirus
> > databases...
> 
> According to the symantec database, there are many worms, but I found no
> viruses.

I guessed so as well. I guess you could for example say: "Okay, just point
me to one! - and then we talk on Windows viruses." in a public statement.

Such attempts to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainity and Doubt) are very popular
from the side of Microsoft and SCO today, at least there would be no word
if MS wouln't feel the threat.

> Searching Google reveals that it is still in doubt whether even Linux Viruses
> exist.

Sounds plausible to me. Maybe, in his argumenation, the word "virus" also
includes "worms" but even then, the number would be bad for MS and even
if the number would be comparable, the frequency which they show themselfes
publically is far higher on Windows.

> As far as I know, there are some(ten?). But in no case can the Linux
> viruses be more than double the Windows viruses...

Me too :)

Maybe someone can complete the MS Vulnerablility story listing on this
wiki page:

http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/MsAntitrust

I think it would be good to have a good track of MS vulnerabilies to
counter such FUD attacs and have something to point at when MS claims
"Trustworthy" computing. Windows should get <i>security</i> first.

I wish the Windows admins a happy monthly patch day (every 2nd
wednesday in the month).

The german ministry of Justice already publically stated(at Systems)
that a system which mainly consists of patches(she referred to a
carpet full of patches for holes) can't be that good and
that there must be something wrong on the security design.

Bernhard

PS, from the wiki page above, I like this one:

> The bottom-line... The entire Microsoft OS family is flawed by design. The
> security model is a model of vulnerability. 
....and so on....