Article

2010-10-14 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Spengler on Iran: So much pirated software, so little time

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-10-14 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 The only weapons on which Iran can rely are unguided missiles that require no electronic controls and simply shoot in the general direction of a target.

aka terrorists. And the Persians have been using them successfully for decades, if not centuries

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-10-14 06:22|| 2010-10-14 06:22|| Front Page Top

#2 One recent study found that over 12% of all private computers in South Korea were infected by bots that resist erasing by Registry. Iran would be even more vulnerable. And in a country riddled with angry ethnic minorities, intelligence gatherers would have no shortage of walk-ins.

Posted by Woozle Phereting2969 2010-10-14 06:34|| 2010-10-14 06:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Microsoft has reportedly come out with a patch, or series of patches, for Stuxnet. But if you don't pay for the license, you can't get support. I've said it before: If you're gonna use Microsoft products you gotta keep up with the patches. It keeps a lot of system administrators very, very busy applying all the patches that a typical Microsoft installation requires. It's what you call job security, which is great if you don't mind working with crap.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-10-14 12:15|| 2010-10-14 12:15|| Front Page Top

#4 Of course, linyucks and Crack OS/X are safe and in the clear...

Posted by M. Murcek 2010-10-14 14:12|| 2010-10-14 14:12|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't care if I do get all ate up with Stuxnet.
I can't use no one button mouse!

Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-10-14 14:37|| 2010-10-14 14:37|| Front Page Top

#6 No OS is ever completely safe. Fact is, I'll admit, they all have to be patched from time to time. But from my own purely subjective perspective, Microsoft has a long history of being more vulnerable than any of the others. UNIX and Linux are also more scaleable and stable, IMHO. That's part of the reason why I get such a big kick out of this whole Stuxnet story. The other part is, as was brought out in this article, the Iranians were using bootleg software. It's always good to see people like that get screwed. Finally, having dealt with a number of different types of customers, I can just imagine the conditions under which the Iranian software engineers are working. Poor bastards.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-10-14 15:45|| 2010-10-14 15:45|| Front Page Top

#7 Windows provides services linyucks and unix can't touch, because that's what the consumer wants. More services means more potential points of exploit. If Windows was as simplistic in its approach to services as linyucks and unix are, the exploits would all be against the applications. Have fun patching that...

Posted by M. Murcek 2010-10-14 16:29|| 2010-10-14 16:29|| Front Page Top

#8 Excel is pretty good, or, at least it was before 2007. You can keep the rest.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-10-14 17:45|| 2010-10-14 17:45|| Front Page Top

#9 Windows provides services linyucks and unix can't touch, because that's what the consumer wants.

Give us some examples. Non-MS apps don't count.

the exploits would all be against the applications. Have fun patching that...

No problem. "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" does the OS and all installed apps.

Posted by KBK 2010-10-14 19:16|| 2010-10-14 19:16|| Front Page Top

23:14 crosspatch
22:33 Anonymoose
22:29 rjschwarz
21:23 Pappy
21:19 Pappy
21:16 Water Modem
21:15 Pappy
20:29 Alaska Paul
20:25 DJ Curtis C
20:20 Anonymoose
20:17 DMFD
20:14 Sgt.Mom
20:05 Sgt.Mom
19:58 Frank G
19:55 Frank G
19:45 Nimble Spemble
19:38 Bright Pebbles
19:33 Frank G
19:16 KBK
19:02 Barbara Skolaut
18:47 Frank G
18:39 Frank G
18:37 Frank G
18:21 CrazyFool