What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.404 Comments
- f4nt0m4s, on 01/24/2008, -4/+113I think it's agreeable to say that all the modern OSes are pretty secure as long as you have a firewall, an AVG-equivalent scanner, and you don't spend all day surfing German Warez sites. If I had to rate secureness I would rate it by the dumbness of the user.
- metapop, on 01/24/2008, -59/+151final words of a dying OS
- heartless_, on 01/24/2008, -9/+98I don't know what is worse: Gizmodo making a bunch of assumptions or the Microsoft guy failing again to explain differences between each OSes idea of a "patch" or "security fix". To me, both sides are just as stupid.
- Myonosken, on 01/24/2008, -4/+84What's most annoying is the obvious fanboy who has posted this under Apple. Because that's not trying to attract a specific response.
- WinGeek, on 10/15/2008, -8/+76They have graphs!
- Lionhart, on 01/24/2008, -5/+59Why is this filed under Apple?
- cscalfani, on 01/24/2008, -37/+83That's 'cause no ones running it :-)
- sh333ts, on 01/24/2008, -7/+48Its great that Microsoft admits only half of their discovered vulnerabilities were fixed in the first year for both XP and Vista.
- apzdsx, on 01/24/2008, -8/+48Well, reading that was a waste of time.
- Cmstech, on 01/24/2008, -1/+35Buried for incorrect title, MS didn't say it was more secure, they said it had the lease first-year vulnerabilities compared to other OSes.
Engadget got it right:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/microsoft-vista ... - apzdsx, on 01/24/2008, -13/+46More people are running Vista than Linux and OSX combined. :O)
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ... - RSJ115, on 01/24/2008, -7/+32Wait, Ubuntu LTS and Red Hat are less secure because they address their security issues quickly, and implement patches at a fast rate?
- nights0223, on 01/24/2008, -1/+26We really don't need a comment like that in every story.
- PhoebusApollo, on 01/24/2008, -2/+26Two things:
1. It's not wrong for the Microsoft rep to taught patching rate and vulnerability figures for Vista. Any software developer has a right to flaunt such figures when Vista is doing so well with it. People should compliment Microsoft for figures like that, and to say no one is using it is completely baseless, adoption rates are very high and you people would know that if did any research.
2. The Gizmodo article is completely worthless, considering that if the author actually did find examples of specific vulnerabilities that are Vista-specific, he would find, CLEARLY, that Vista is considerably more secure than XP was during its first year, not just in number of vulnerabilities but in degrees of severity and exploitability. Most of you clowns haven't even switched to Vista yet because of how convinced you are of its insecurities, despite few to no major news stories about ACTUAL vulnerabilities/insecurities existing. Do you think it was like that when XP came out? I know most of you have short term memories, but the answer is clearly "no", when XP came out it was chastised for its security problems. When it came out, people would often switch back to 98 SE or 2000. History repeats itself quite frequently, didn't mean XP was the worse operating system then, nor does it mean Vista is the worst one now. Most computer user's fears of Vista are simply completely baseless.
Finally, to say Vista is more secure than popular Linux platforms or Mac OSX is not completely wrong. While XP/Vista both share the "Windows dillemna" - the unavoidable consequence of being the most used operating system for home computer use, making the platform the biggest target for vulnerabiltiies - vulnerabilities for Mac OSX are little to laugh at (in fact if you read about some of them, they're downright scary), especially when people get smart and start exploiting them, and vulnerabilities for Linux based platforms have for a long time grossly negatively affected uptime of webservices on the internet. While there are a bevy of Windows users who were a victim of identity theft because they got infected by a virus (the vast majority of the time through USER ERROR not SECURITY VULNERABILITY), someone has hacked a Linux box with a webserver and stolen thousands of usernames, credit card numbers, personal information, etc.
You can't argue Vista is inherently insecure because it's not. If so, produce a Vista-specific vulernability and show some history of it being exploited. I bet you'd have time finding one that isn't some proof of concept that was patched before any actual exploit launched for it. Fact is, the reason Windows users get malicious software is because they are stupid and download it themselves, but of course that's ALSO Microsoft's fault, I guess. - justice7, on 01/24/2008, -12/+35Do you really think microsoft would say anything different here? They are trying to sell a product. Also, it is impossible to really compare them because its all apples and oranges, it is all about your perception on the issue.
- reed311, on 01/24/2008, -9/+32From my personal experience, Vista has been more secure and more reliable then XP was in it's early years. The big difference is that gaming in Vista pretty much sucks, but it is getting better with newer patches for games, etc.
- pcpimpster, on 01/24/2008, -7/+28"dying OS" is really delusional.
- andycr512, on 01/24/2008, -9/+30This is a strawman. They are comparing the numbers of published vulnerabilities, not actual exploits. Obviously Microsoft won't publish a vulnerability before they fix it unless they have to, but Linux users will since everything is discussed on public channels in most projects. More eyes seeing the code in Linux also means that more security vulnerabilities will be discovered by peer review before they are ever used in the wild.
In short, citing a low published vulnerability count as meaning high security is like saying your airport is more secure because you let far less security inspectors in and thus they find fewer holes. At best it means that you have better security (very rare), at worst it means you have more vulnerabilities than the competition but the fact that the internals are encased in cement (no source code available) means that people just cannot see them as easily. - Hickeroar, on 01/24/2008, -9/+30And who's to say Vista's security holes aren't being covered up or ignored? Based on their definition of "secure," NOT patching Vista makes it more secure.
All "security" things aside, Vista still sucks wore than any of the other OS's listed there. - chris9902, on 01/24/2008, -2/+18If by dying you mean outselling OS X 50:1 then yes you are correct.
- Aeuta, on 01/24/2008, -10/+26I love how nearly half of their vulnerabilities are still unfixed...
- MioTheGreat, on 01/24/2008, -0/+15Uh, no.
That's a case of one particular piece of ***** software not working with a rather major OS upgrade. Every other piece of DVD-Ripping software still works with SP1. - Twindagger, on 01/24/2008, -2/+17They don't have a year of history for Leopard. Honestly, some people here are totally biased idiots. I don't run Vista on my PC and I own a Mac, but you really can't fault Microsoft for selling a product. Are all the MS Fanbois going to protest when Apple claims "300 new features in Leapord?"
- yournamehere, on 01/24/2008, -5/+20i think Vistas market share is greater than Apple's OS.. so who's the joke on?
- Miche1987, on 01/24/2008, -4/+18apples and penguins*
- KyferEz, on 01/24/2008, -14/+27THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE IT'S BEING SOLD ON NEW PCS!!!
- ConanTL, on 01/24/2008, -12/+25Can anybody look at this and not laugh???
According to their charts XP was more secure than OSX or Linux ... my ass. - godzillaWax, on 01/24/2008, -3/+16Can someone please also summon the grammar nazi's on the gizmodo guy? It's *fewer* vulnerabilities, not less.
If you get paid to write for a living, you should at least be able to afford a $5 grammar reference. - alex1015, on 01/24/2008, -5/+18Why is this listed under apple?
- vibrokatana, on 01/24/2008, -2/+14The same site states that they should not be used to compare or use as statistics for an OS.
- djphazer, on 01/24/2008, -1/+13Because it's rising very quickly. Digg has changed things up with their popularity algorithms.
Now you know, so you can shut up about it. - KarthVader, on 01/24/2008, -8/+19As soon as I read the headline, all I could say was, "I'll believe that when me ***** turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert."
- azurepalm, on 01/24/2008, -5/+16and OS X isn't sold with new Macs?
- beathermit, on 01/24/2008, -2/+12will it also lower my thetan levels
- santaliqueur, on 01/24/2008, -0/+10Literally? How did you manage to post?
- fishbert, on 01/24/2008, -5/+14As I read the graph, MS has fixed only about 50% of the identified vulnerabilities of both Vista and XP. That's the worst patch rate of the lot.
And, having a lower number of identified vulnerabilities may indicate a lack of interest/effort in identifying vulnerabilities. Not something I'd shout from a rooftop (certainly not with the aforementioned 50% patch rate). - norman619, on 01/24/2008, -26/+36Dying OS? They have well over 90% of the market. You are aware of that right? Of the OS's needing users it's OSX. When was the last time you saw a Linux TV ad urging people to buy it? When was the last time you saw a Windows ad urging people to buy it other than the few Vista release ads? How often do you see an Apple ad for OSX begging you to buy? Everyday. Vista has a guaranteed user base. It will inherit the XP user base just like XP inherited the Windows 2000 user base.
- Hickeroar, on 01/24/2008, -8/+18I've installed the SP1-RC, and trust me, there's nothing in there that's going to magically make Vista attractive. It's still utter bloatware, utterly unreliable, and an utter disappointment.
- MioTheGreat, on 01/24/2008, -5/+15Dying? It's already got a larger market share than Linux, OSX, and every pre-XP version of Windows combined.
- norman619, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10That would be quite a day indeed.
- oriondr, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9For all we know from reading the article alone, Microsoft DID explain the difference, but the gizmodo guy (with very blatant bias) neglected to include it. He's basing his article off another 3rd party article. The original blog post is here:
http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2008/01/ ... - Aeuta, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9But 10.5 hasn't been out for a year neither has ubuntu 7.10...
- natenovs, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10read the damn paper:
"I think it worth spending a moment to discuss what this analysis covers, why it might be useful to some people and, perhaps most importantly, what it does not say.
If it was possible to measure “security” in one metric, it would have to encompass a complex combination of factors including (but not limited to) the software quality, administrative controls, physical controls, and much more – and even then, it would all be in the context of whatever security policy was defined for the systems in question.
So, this is not an analysis of “the security”. I don’t look at protective mechanisms and see how they might protect in certain scenarios. Nor do I look at security features and see how they might enable better privacy or help secure business process. And I certainly don’t look at how easy it is to manage the security policy for these products.
Is there anything in this analysis which will prove one piece of software is “more secure” than another? No, that is not my intention.
This report is a vulnerability analysis, which may provide some elements that could be part of a broader security analysis. I fundamentally believe that security and non-security features need to be built upon a foundation of good engineering and solid security quality if they are to perform as we expect and not be misused to the detriment of security."
nobody claimed vista was more secure than anything!
all this study is used for is to show that the Secure Development Lifecycle, safe libraries, /gs flag, and other security initiatives are actually producing better code. honestly, what's wrong with that? - Trixrox, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10I rip DVDs with SP1, something must be wrong here..
- MioTheGreat, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10Upgrade your graphics drivers, and install all of the performance and reliability updates for Vista.
After doing that, you should have a very negligable performance drop in Vista gaming. There was a bug with Virtual memory that would cause d3d games in Vista to balloon in memory, but that was fixed months ago. And the driver situation is pretty much on par with XP right now (I personally feel that the drivers are more stable in Vista)
Here's some benchmarks: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_win ... - jake6730, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9Because the writer knows that Apple users will be quick to digg any article bashing Winodws.
- ja1217, on 01/24/2008, -4/+13Also, don't forget about security from hackers. While the average user is most likely never going to be targeted, businesses and governments may often be targeted. I recently took part in a cyber defense competition with my college. Unfortunately for us, we forgot to change the default password on our BSD box and we got owned pretty badly through that. However, I was able to come back for the next round and watch the hackers in action. While the Windows machines were not fully up to date with patches, neither were the linux and unix machines. However, within the first seconds of the tournament, they had owned just about everyones windows machines. However, the only way they got into the Linux machines were through default passwords that didn't get changed fast enough.
However, the hackers were able to do some hilarious stuff to the windows machines. At one point, the hackers ran a joke program on one of the competitors machines that made it look like the computer was going through the Vista upgrade procedure. It was hilarious, cause we could watch exactly what was happening as one of the other hackers was running a screen capture on that machine. We also ran over to the room where the competitors were and they were like "WTF? Its upgrading to Vista and I can't stop it." All in all, it was a fun competition and I learned a lot. And it also affirmed my belief that Windows is far more insecure than any *nix box. - chris9902, on 01/24/2008, -0/+898 million more than OS X.
- totorototoro, on 01/24/2008, -5/+13This guy again? Note that just like last time, once the ***** hits the fan, he'll backtrack and claim he's not speaking for Microsoft, but as an "independent" researcher just crunching some numbers. *nudge nudge, wink wink*
- fittysix, on 01/24/2008, -13/+21Wow,
The vista haters are all starting to sound like zealot fanboys here. No one here is providing any sort of proofs, noone here is actually doing any work to dispute those claims. Almost every comment on this story so far is the equivalent of "zomg no its not you're wrong I'm right!"
If you don't like the OS then don't use it, but consider for a second that perhaps this fact is true. The OS might be slower, have a 'bad' UI because it's not the one you're familiar with, and your computer might suck too much to run it, but just maybe it is in fact a very secure OS.
It seems everyone has made up their minds on the OS, so everything they seem to think about it must be true anyways. -
Show 51 - 100 of 397 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is