Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: German state gov. dicthing Windows for Linux,  30k workers migrating.
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:35:11 +0100
Organization: Poppy Records
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <1qrnmxu.99joma1j6s84iN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
References: <uuqirt$6kgh$1@solani.org> <jgp21jl76nk0c3064ss3pbfq5pboav93hp@4ax.com> <5qb31j9c2ia9a6h2fr50onqa2vp4d4bsfm@4ax.com> <3hf31j9d0uq5b9imcq94b495c3hclbjv79@4ax.com>
X-Trace: individual.net 7M1Jn/XeD1hKstF5D73TvgT8uOEwyEfKmONTnYQDpREuTgSAso
X-Orig-Path: liz
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Vw85v0//3VST36L/ZPaS6fWc3s= sha256:Ke5d/dKqu70crDr1QnpAEbD38FvqTKR+vC2cYpZqhao=
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6
Bytes: 2978

Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 21:24:14 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:14:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 04:25:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>German state gov. ditching Windows for Linux, 30K workers migrating
> >>>Schleswig-Holstein looks to succeed where Munich failed. >
> >>https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/04/german-state-gov-
> >>ditching-windows-for-linux-30k-workers-migrating/ > I'd suggest reading
> >>the entire article.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Less US spying too.
> >>
> >>Nah.  Linux is no harder for big intelligence agencies than Windows or
> >>MacOS.  And Linux is already dominant in the infrastructure, so those
> >>agencies are already there.
> >>
> >>Joe Gwinn
> >
> >... Unless you roll your own distro and know how to use it
> >securely....
> 
> And are too small potatoes for the big agencies to bother, leaving the
> field to various hackers.

There are two extreme approaches to security:

1)  Put a major effort into designing a universal high-security system
that can be sold worldwide to cover its development costs.

2)  Have every small operator design their own system, which is
reasonably secure but may not be foolproof.

The first option is the one which most people and businesses take, but
it results in a prize that every hacker feels is worth breaking because
of the results it will yield.  Sooner or later someone will find a
weakness and exploit it.  A major update is then required.

The second option is theoretically weaker, so very few major players
would consider it, but it would take a lot of time and effort to hack
into the pecularities of each individual system and simply wouldn't be
worthwhile if it only results in a tiny yield.  Small changes to the
system can be made easily and will involve the hacker in an inordinately
large amount of work for small returns.


-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk