Posted on 06/22/2007 7:53:18 PM PDT by Rodney King
Attention Linux, Vista, and Apple fan boys: put on your gloves... it's time to rumble! A 6-month vulnerability report issued by Jeff "Security Guy" Jones has caught the eye of Redmond and the ire of places beyond. The report which bases its security assessment upon vulnerabilities found (not actually exploited) claims that Vista is "more secure than OS X and Linux." In fact, the much maligned XP even crushes the competition using their calculations. Of course, it's worth noting that Jeff is a member of Microsoft's Security business unit which will probably sway your opinion as to the integrity of the data. Still, as incomplete as the assessment may be, it certainly appears to be a good showing for Vista considering the vast community of hackers attempting to thwart its security. We can predict what Billy G's probably saying right about now: Dy-no-mite JJ!
That's what I hear...been meaning to check it out.
I'm ambivalent about Aero, even though I run it...I've run standard and haven't noticed a substantial difference on CPU/RAM usage between the two..
Thanks!
You're right I haven't had to update the Vista near as much. Been pretty nice, especially since I have so many computers.
Was wondering about that... it's JJ from that show from Good Times. Dynomite!
please excuse above typo.
“Of course, it’s worth noting that Jeff is a member of Microsoft’s Security business unit...”
Sorry, but that obviates the whole report.
I only put stock in such reports that are completely independent of Microsoft or anyone else. Otherwise, I have to presume that it is propaganda, be it pro-Microsoft, pro-Linux, or pro-Apple.
The thing that has to be remembered is that no computer operating system is completely secure, not even OpenBSD, which claims and I quote verbatim from the OpenBSD Web page, “Only two remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years!” Furthermore, unless an OS is kept up to date with current patches, be it Microsoft, Linux, Unix, or Mac, its security degrades with time as its vulnerabilities become known.
Another factor to consider is which platform is the target of the most malware (viruses, worms, spyware, and the like). We all know the answer to that question. To be fair, though, the degree to which an OS is targeted by malware writers is a function of 1. OS ubiquity, and 2. Ease of attack. Without a doubt one of the big factors in the huge amount of malware written for MS platforms is the ubiquity of MS products, but for too long, the term “Microsoft security” has been an oxymoron and a joke, and for the most part, it still is, the most recent claims notwithstanding.
The bottom line here is, which OS, given a choice, would you put directly on the Internet as a firewall? There are several good choices in my view, but I have to tell you that no MS operating system is among them. Furthermore, for two things which I use a computer to do most, Web browsing and email, I greatly prefer a non-MS operating system that is properly configured and maintained with up to date security patches. I don’t have to worry about ActiveX controls and viruses.
But security goes further than that. I have a special account that I have set up on a not so frequently used machine that I use for online banking, bill paying, and ecommerce exclusively. That account is not used for general browsing, so no spyware can get to my banking information. It is non-MS, of course, so the vast majority of viruses and spyware will not even run on the system. (Of course, if the bank has a security breach, that is yet another issue!)
OS security, while important, is only part of the picture. It goes without saying that a properly maintained MS system with good passwords and users who engage in good security practices will be more secure than an OpenBSD system that has poor passwords and or users who share passwords or engage in other poor security practices. No amount of built in OS security can compensate for poor user practice.
If you are implying that Apache(the best web server IMHO) isn't available for Windows, then you are mistaken. I wouldn't run Apache, or any web server on Windows, but it IS available for Windows, to those who are foolish enough to expose a Windows box to public net traffic.
*sigh* guess I'll have to grep your old comments... nah, I don't actually care to argue, it's been a long week.
Tell ya what, GE, let's agree on something.
BSD rocks. The last two computers I bought were both Mac OS X -- a PPC MacMini in 2005, and very recently a pair of MacBooks for my daughter and myself. Before that, the last major CPU hardware I bought was in 2001 (great hardware, so it lasted).
So now I've got VMware Fusion running VMs of WinXP, Fedora Core 4, NetBSD, and a few others on the MacBook, in addition to the native BSD. I've got VMware Workstation on my Linux box. I'll never have to buy another native Windows machine as long as I live.
Solaris is cool, I use it occasionally at work, but the others cover everything I normally have to do. The distributed corporate network I maintain is primarily NetBSD, with a number of Windows application servers, and a few miscellaneous Mac and linux servers for particular functions.
Glad to find we have something in common. I was beginning to fear that you only could find virtues in the products of Bill Gates' fevered mind. When a company with as much talent as Microsoft does, has to bow and scrape so shamelessly to get people to buy their latest offerings, you have to wonder...
So I'm happy to hear that you'll be boosting Unix from now on. Huzzah!!
That is a great post. See my previous post #30.
You've got to be kidding. Unless a certain bird has been suspended again.
Okay, I can't count. "The last THREE computers I bought..."
All Macs, running Unix and a large amount of open source, in addition to some of the world's best proprietary software as well.
Read for yourself, this is from AntiRepublic yesterday, note the BSD reference.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1853724/posts?page=126#126
We use a lot of Solaris at work, if you don’t recall Sun used to be pretty tight with SCO and I still do believe that we are better off with a US unix than with Linux, thank goodness Sun has still survived. Apple is a great version of Unix too, my first “desktop computers” were all Apple’s back in the 80’s but when Jobs left the company there in the 80’s they sort of fell apart. Good to see them making a resurgence too, now if we can just somehow deal with all these free foreign clones of our software, you know?
Looks like tonight is my night to find common ground with GE (he also liked your post). Who'd-a thunk it?
Yeah without those Linux guys and all their BS we get along great.
Yep, glad to see it.
I first used Unix in the form of Sys-V on an AT&T 3B2/300 minicomputer -- Cornell Univ. was getting rid of a bunch of them brand new, with system software and full documentation, so I got a couple (wanted to play with networking as well) and immediately and irrevocably got hooked on Unix.
That was in 1985. 22 years later, it's still the best.
That said, I'm not a fanboy -- I'll sing the praises of Linux and even Windows when they do something better. It just happens that Apple's OS X has become the best of both worlds (Unix under the hood, and a great GUI on top).
FWIW, Windows could have been that, if they'd paid more attention. It's not like Redmond lacks talent; but they lack vision and discipline. In the case of the Mac, Apple's wonderkids supplied the vision, and AT&T's old gray Unix gurus supplied the discipline.
Your first comment to the article was:
I am posting this because of my deep interest in the intricacies of the security standards for operating systems,
How long have you had a "deep interest in the security standards for operating systems"?
I'm wondering because you can't spend very long at all in the security world and not know of Bruce Schneier.
Check out Counterpane.com.
Heh. But see, I'm entirely comfortable using Linux where it makes sense to do so -- that is, where it is the best tool for the particular application. By contrast, I get the feeling you would avoid using Linux, even if in your technically objective view it might be the best fit for the job at hand.
Or do I misunderstand you?
Dude, he's on record in this forum saying that CDE is his recommended X environment on unix systems because he's so ideologically averse to open source software. I mean, could you imagine recommending CDE over either KDE or Gnome? Granted KDE and Gnome are beginning to suffer from featureitis, but for applications where you want lighter weight X, you there are a couple of handfuls of other, more nimble window managers.
You must have tiny needs. Max 1000 threads per processor is pretty puny in this century. I need an OS with more Ummph.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.