4 ms·
You'd be surprised how many things are running Windows. I always wonder if the manufacturer just hires cheap contractors that haven't seen anything apart from W
by vultour 9y ago
You'd be surprised how many things are running Windows. I always wonder if the manufacturer just hires cheap contractors that haven't seen anything apart from Windows in their entire life, or if there is an actual reason it can't run on linux.
- Hendrikto 9y agoOpenBSD would be perfect for the job, wouldn‘t it?
- luma 9y agoAn OpenBSD machine still running unpatched from the XP era would be every bit as vulnerable.
- ams6110 9y agoYes and no. OpenBSD always had far fewer exploitable bugs than Windows, so it presents a smaller attack surface. And far fewer people bothered to develop exploits. Windows has always been the big juicy target, with exploits easily available. But on the other hand, it only takes one.
- ethbro 9y agoI'd challenge that. Given that there are serious security architecture differences between Windows XP and OpenBSD systems. For starters, Windows XP has always optimized for "plug random hardware in and it Just Works" while OpenBSD aims more at "what is the minimal number of services we can have running in the base image." Sure, OpenSSL vulnerabilities found in the intervening time will still affect both, but we're still talking orders of magnitude difference in RCE vulnerabilities.
- dboreham 9y agoOne reason would be that the vendors require support. Of course there are supported embedded versions of Linux that they could use..
- _Understated_ 9y agoCould be to do with adding and controlling them from an Active Directory Domain perhaps. A bank I worked for years ago had ATM domains (in different forests) and had policies applied to the ATM's. They ran XP at the time.