Re: lazy saturday notebook comparo (long)

[Michael Blakeley <mike@blakeley.com>]

In article 
<Pine.LNX.4.33.0108230057090.29791-100000@opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.d
e>,
 schmitz@opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de (Michael Schmitz) wrote:

> >
> > One other factor nobody has mentioned here is SECURITY.  For
> > buffer-overflow type security holes, remote and local, almost all of the
> > exploits are written for i386, so non-Intel platforms are inherently
> > less vulnerable.  Last week's LWN security section opened with a piece
> 
> Security through obscurity? Nope, doesn't work. Thanks for playing though.

The poster implicitly distinguished between targeted and untargeted 
attacks: calling his defense STO is, I think, an oversimplification. 
Sitting outside the target group has its place in ameliorating 
least-common-denominator attacks like Red Worm. By avoiding the LCD OS 
and applications, you place yourself outside the susceptible population.

Choice of OS/protocal/application does not protect you against attacks 
targeted specifically at you: your enemies will understand PPC buffer 
over-flows, and will exploit them. Still, it's nice to know that you are 
less likely than an Intel box to be taken down by random acts of 
vandalism.

To bring this thread back on topic, I'm very happy with the price I paid 
for an ibook dual-SUB. Checklists aside, it's an excellent value.

--
Michael Blakeley       mike@blakeley.com     <http://www.blakeley.com/>
            Performance Analysis for Internet Technologies