OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Re: [Dailydave] Lame studies that people quote as fact that haveno basis in reality and still don't prove anything even if they did

From: H D Moore (hdm-daily-davedigitaloffense.net)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 20:55:55 CST

OpenBSD had a minimal user base, more vulns would have been found if there
was a reason to dig for them in the first place. Additionally, Theo
hadn't pissed off an army of determined bug hunters yet :)

Windows 98 had quite a few remote vulns. There were the Winsock stack
issues (all those fun DoS attacks), there was the NetBIOS share name
password disclosure/bypass bug, and some serious disclosure issues when
then file sharing was enabled. The second you dropped any network service
onto the system, you opened up another flood of vulnerabilities. I have
run into 98 boxes running SQL Server 7, IIS 4.0, Personal Web Server,
etc. The best thing about 98 and network services was the "..." directory
traversal attacks... Software which runs reasonable securely on NT 4.0
becomes a gaping security hole when you install it on a 9x box.

On Wednesday 04 February 2004 08:11 pm, Sinan Eren wrote:
> for some serious phun here it goes.
>
> > principle in the design stage? Does anyone seriously believe that Win
> > 98 is more secure than OpenBSD?
>
> yes i DO. lets roll time back to 1998 with all you current sploits