Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 21:38 UTC, submitted by whorider
Thread beginning with comment 400187
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
This is all perfectly fair enough.
Here is where we diverge. It does matter, very much, how you go about getting the software on to your system.
If you stick to a system where the whole process, from whoa to go, from source code text editor all the way through to "click apply" for installing the software on the end user's system, is auditable and visible to many eyes who use (but who did not write) that code, then you can be safe.
If you routinely deal with a binary-blob system where no-one but the original authors (who just may be malicious) ever has visibility into the code, then you will be quite likely to get malware.
It is a mindset thing, it is a paradigm. Windows itself is all-too-firmly in the latter camp (even if the code from Microsoft itself can be trusted). Expect to get burned.