What is Digg?366 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -105/+288Not a popular opinion, but I agree. Windows XP with all patches and service packs, firewall and proper anti-virus is stable as the Great Wall of China.
- Inqu, on 10/24/2007, -63/+236*waits for the Linux and Apple fanboys heads to explode*
- hipnerd, on 10/24/2007, -54/+203Let's compare the numbers in a different way. How many of those vulnerabilities were "high priority" or "severe"?
From the article:
Windows
"12 of which were ranked high priority or severe"
Red Hat Linux
"only two were considered high severity,"
OS X
"only one was high priority"
So Windows had six times more severe vulnerabilities than Red Hat Linux and 12 times more than OS X. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -34/+176Its gotta be so frigging tough for MS to even get windows working.
Because of their huge user base they can't do an 'Apple' and just toss out all backwards compatibility and rewrite the OS from scratch with security and stability in mind! I don't doubt that MS could create an almost totally secure OS if they didn't have to worry about making windows so compatible that even old DOS programs from 15 years ago work without any major problems. - RedLion, on 10/24/2007, -43/+132Akaji: because they backed their statements up with facts?
- fintheman, on 10/12/2007, -57/+141This should be interesting
I take it that the fanboys will "think" they know more than the security researchers at one of the largest and one of the most trusted security companies in the world.
Symantec, historically, has never been "friendly" towards Microsoft either. - changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -14/+93What's happening to Digg today? Microsoft fanboy day?
I don't disagree with the article, but it's just weird to see digg crowd actually digging up pro-Windows comments. - Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -37/+115As bad as people harp on Windows XP being buggy and vulnerable, you have to give some points to Microsoft for endlessly sending fix after fix, and the patches for the bugs in the patches. Sometimes I think sending those error reports after Windows encounters a serious problem and must shut down does squat, but then days like these where I might be convinced that someone is actually looking at them.
- i64X, on 10/12/2007, -24/+73>> saggygrandma
If your comment made any sense, wouldn't Symantec be calling Windows the LEAST secure operating system in order to try to get you to buy their products to protect it?
>> pile
>> they only count the core windows update patches. They ignore patches for the other services and applications like Office
>> They're comparing apples to peanuts
You're comparing an office suite to an OS. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -105/+154The thing is, people assume that Mac OS X is more secure.
They're wrong. It's just that no one wants to write malware and viruses for an OS if they won't spread, and won't hit many people.
On my Vista and XP partitions, I never have problems. In the rare event of a virus, it gets locked down immediately. My computer doesn't crash, and it doesn't get viruses. - SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -27/+72I've never heard such a crock of BS in my life. This is a half-assed article that draws a false conclusion by looking at a narrow field of facts. Microsoft on average patch holes faster than anyone else, this does NOT make their OS the most secure, NOR does it mean they are the kings of the OS hill. They HAVE to do this to keep on top of the huge number of vulnerabilities in Windows and stop their users' computers being exploited. And do you know the worst thing about all this? DESPITE this super-amazing rate of vulnerability patching they have failed (with XP at least) to stop millions of PCs being turned into Spam and DDoS zombies. I know some of it is due in part to user idiocy but it's not their fault their new PC shipped with such a festering pile of junk of an OS. I'm just thankful Vista actually makes some attempt to stop this kinda crap happening from the get-go, but I really don't even hold out much hope for it being as secure as it is now in 2 years time.
OK I'm done you can start digging me down now... - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -18/+58Right, because Linux distros and Apple never release security patches do they?
- Darcy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44I don't think that's fair, from what I've seen most Linux distros are actually pretty good at dealing with vulnerabilities and have no real problems acknowledging security issues. Though I do think apple need to change their attitude before they get burnt.
- tirofiban, on 10/12/2007, -10/+40It's true, Windows is the most secure. I mean, I never get spyware or viruses on my Windows computer.
But, like every other day I'm reinstalling Ubuntu and OS X on my other computers. I cannot believe how quickly my Ubuntu and OS X computers keep getting infected. I think these computers keep getting infected because there really isn't any good antivirus or antispyware software out there for Ubuntu or OS X.
If I have to go to a really shady, suspicious web site, I'll choose Windows. And I don't look back. That's how confident I am about Windows.
Plus, Symantec knows what they are talking about. In the rare case where a Windows computer gets infected, Norton always, flawlessly removes the evil program in question, causing no harm whatsoever to my Windows machine.
Also Symantec knows a lot about Linux and OS X, so they are the best source to judge Linux and OS X security.
Thank God we have Windows and Symantec!
- Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -46/+76"12 of which were ranked high priority or severe," - For MS.
" two were considered high severity," - Red Hat
" only one was high priority." - Apple
Tell me again how this means MS won? Also, not sure how Apple is set up, but here it makes no mention of where the flaws were. With MS, it is just the OS, whereas with Redhat it can be the OS itself, Open Office, or VIM, or K3B, or any of the other programs that it comes with. I certainly hope they weren't considering them as well - but I think they were...
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -13/+41I hope, for your sake, that you're being sarcastic.
- HeliumHigh, on 10/12/2007, -13/+40@godamit
You do know the great wall of china failed to keep the huns out right?
As far as stable and secure, ya, it actually is. MS almost dropped longhorn/vista to get SP2 out. SP2 did a pretty good job of patching stuff up. I still don't like to touch anything other then sites I already know are good in IE7, but its actually getting up to par. I will argue though, that linux still has a better security implementation method. Windows had to be kicked by a firewall into playing nice on the internet playground, linux on the other hand has been very secure for a long time. And if you want crazy security, try OpenBSD. That thing is rock solid. - com2, on 10/12/2007, -24/+50BTW: Win 95 is a "very secure" OS. It is secure in the sense that NO ONE writes virus' for it anymore so it is every bit as secure as OSX. :)
- cheeseron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28I don't know what you're talking about, as most major linux distros release security patches pretty quickly.
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -23/+47You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow?
- abhiroop, on 10/12/2007, -23/+45@hipnerd,
although thats true it took apple a lot longer to fix the 1 vulnerability (on average) than it took microsoft... - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29Symantec faces an interesting problem.
On the one hand, if people switch to other, more secure OS'es, they've just shot themselves in the foot by eliminating their market.
On the other hand, if people are too well convinced of windows' security, they've also got no market, because "windows is totally secure, why bother buying security products" - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Yeah because we all know a memory leak in mplayer is JUST AS SERIOUS as spyware that runs in kernel mode.
- JakeBo, on 10/12/2007, -76/+93The biggest thing I see here is that Microsoft is quick to admit a problem and make a fix. Linux and Apple seem to just say we have no problems. If you don't admit a problem it is kind of hard to fix the problem. Keep up the good work Microsoft.
- taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23BSD is really the most secure of all systems, but all systems do have ways to being broken.
- Liquidmark, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22"*waits for the Linux and Apple fanboys heads to explode*"
You'll be waiting a loooooooong time.
Symantic makes money off of Windows. They want the MOST suckers/people possible using Windows. The make NO money on the other platforms.
Tell you what, ANYONE who believes this crap, should just delete your Anti-virus,adware,malware,spyware, WHATEVER software and go at it bareback from now on. Windows is the MOST secure OS right? So what do you have to fear? WHY are you spending money on AV software?
I'm waiting. - staticten, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18you tryin' to be funny there PitterPan?
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30abhiroop: I don't dispute that.
My point was fairly simple and not particularly controversial: You can take the same set of facts as given in the article and use them to prove the exact opposite "fact": that Windows is the _least_ secure operating system. I suspect this is true regardless just because it is the most popular OS, and thus is the largest target for crackers and viruses.
I'm not really advocating one position or the other, but I would be interested in hearing why people disagree with me, rather than just anonymously digging me down, which was what was happening earlier. - l0gden, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25I don't understand why your being dugg down. You are absolutely right. What matters here is not the raw numbers of vulnerabilities but the severity of the vulnerability. While it is good to see fewer vulnerabilities overall in the worlds leading OS until the high priority ones are less than the other two I don't think that the statement "most secure OS" is a fair characterization.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -29/+42Look at that, people getting dugg down for asking how the vulnerabilities were compared. Is it a bad thing to ask questions about the validity of a statement now a days?
Just tell what all was included. Was it just kernel patches, browser patches too, commonly used software? - Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29FUD. Buried as inaccurate.
Saying windows is secure because of less patches released is like saying Ethiopians are healthier because they see less doctors. - ajchavar, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24i think one thing most people overlook is that most of the problem with viruses lies with the user, if youre a moron, you'll be more prone than someone who knows how to use a computer "safely."
all the OSs are pretty much equal if a person is using them who knows how to protect themselves. - malkir, on 10/12/2007, -22/+32Did any of you bother to count the severity of the vulnerabilities? Microsoft wins most insecure by that metric. Did anyone claiming that Symantec hates Microsoft even consider in their tiny little head that Symantec would not exist except for insecure Windows Platforms? Use your heads people.
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13It'd be 100% secure if you kept everything on that list and took retards like you away from any electrical appliance and sharp things.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I know, but.. Those statistics...
Just Look at them.
If you DO read the article for the counts:
Windows - 39, 12 severe, average 21 day fix,
Mac - 49, 1 severe, average 66 day fix,
Red Hat - 208, 2 severe, average 13 day fix. - RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -36/+46pile: if you don't believe symantec then read this independent zdnet story where they came out with a similar conclusion @ http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=135 (yes, this story has also a graph)
- brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Zenneth is right even though he was dugg down.
The most important points of the whole article seem to have been missed by most comments here;
"12 of which were ranked high priority or severe, were found in Microsoft Windows"
"...of the 208 Red Hat vulnerabilities, the most of the top five operating systems, only two were considered high severity"
OSX: "Fortunately, only one was high priority."
They are basing their security ranking on the turnaround time and total patches- not on the number of severe or high priority vulnerabilities. If you are asking me which is more secure, then based on their data, I would say its OSX. If you are asking who fixes vulnerabilities faster, then its Microsoft. And its a cheap shot the way they say fortunately like its luck or something - myfanwy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16maybe, but use a reputable source like secunia.com and you'll get similar results
- jtherrien, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Zdnet has a report card on Vista's security: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=135
Check it out. Shocked? - offthewagon, on 10/12/2007, -16/+25Dugg for the sheer anger and rampant denials it will elicit.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -25/+33Microsoft won because they had less overall, and were proactive in pushing out patches.
"With MS, it is just the OS, whereas with Redhat it can be the OS itself, Open Office, or VIM, or K3B, or any of the other programs that it comes with."
Wrong, Redhat does not manage OOo or 3rd party patching. That is the job of the respective dev teams. - i64X, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13>> Second, anyone who knows anything about PC security knows that Symantec products are some of the worst in the industry.
[Raises hand] I know quite a bit about system and network security (7 years experience, MCSE+Security) and if you indeed do ask someone who knows something about security they'll tell you that users are the greatest danger to a system or network, not viruses or spyware. It's an administrator's job to make sure that the network stays as impervious as possible to stuff like that - and if they do a bad job, no matter what the OS, then it's their fault, not the OS' fault.
I'd say 95% of the time when an incident happens on a system or network it's the fault of an uneducated user messing something up either intentionally or unintentionally... not a virus or "hacker."
I think you're arguing Symantec being an unbiased source in the wrong direction. If they wanted to drum up business for themselves, why would they call Windows the most secure OS when that's the OS for which they sell security products? Wouldn't it make more sense to call Windows the LEAST secure so they could try and sell some more virus/spyware/etc. scanners? - scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The problems with windows is that if a tard sits down at an unsecured copy of windows running IE, it takes all of 30 seconds before the machine is filthy with spyware. This happened to my parents when my cousin was house sitting for them.
If you're not retarded, your machine will be fine.
Macs are mostly retard proof, so in that way, it is more secure. - Sanchez, on 10/12/2007, -16/+24How predictable, since no one can find a hole in this pro microsoft story, they start twisting words and throwing petty insults at Symantec and Microsoft.
- SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@ hipnerd
Hear, frickin hear, finally a voice of reason speaks out! - i64X, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15If you're the systems admin for your environment and you have big problems with spyware and viruses then you're doing something wrong. I've been the admin at my place of employment for two years and have yet to have one virus infection or case of spyware or malware on my network. If there's an avenue for those things to get in to your network, that's where you're supposed to be the one to enumerate those risks and implement procedures to mitigate them.
- Rosstafari, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Another miscategorization. This one belong in the Bizarre News section.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15@solemnraven - XP is NT 5.1
@changyang1230 - and digging down anything that isn't pro microsoft. Ask valid questions, or make valid statements, and you get dugg down. Doesn't matter what you say.
@zdiggler - Without any malware scanners, how can you find malware? Thats like saying, "I don't have an answering machine or caller ID, but no one calls me when I'm not home!" - Darcy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Give it up.
- Devils, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16I think the easiest way for us webmasters to test this out is to go out and download some of the security frameworks. Run the Packet-forest security assessment tool (its a port scanner). Notice the number of exploits setup for a 'stock' Windows SBS03 server (this is what I have running, sorry, cant test it on any other version) compared to the number shown when scanning a netBSD server running apache2.0. If you would like to go ahead and try these exploits, youll notice that this framework provides a numerical base for the "difficulty" of penetrating target machine. Any time you identify via portscanning that a machine is running netBSD, freeBSD or openBSD (hehe, and my gentoo linux server, but thats another story) will give you a difficulty of "999999999" with a built in comment appearing that says "good luck!" if you attempt it.
I think the largest opensource 'crackerhacker' framework speaks for itself.
Windows needs about 3 applications to be 'secure' and about 50 updates from SP2 to current and updates for Windows Defender and ClamWin anti-virus. After that its to Spybot Search and Destory, update, immunize, restart. Now comes the fun part, disable as many services as possible. If you dont print, turn off print spooling, if you have no speakers, turn off windows audio. if you have no other users, turn off user switching and dynamic user accounts and security account information. Enable classic shell and install Firefox2. Add my own list of bad sites to the host file. Disable IE6/7 to everything except windows update. Turn off windows update and add a script that times your updates using an opensource implementation of the cron system for windows (uses ALOT less ram). Restart. Update EVERYTHING again. Finish disabling windows error serivces, BITs and almost all other LAN services including DHCP (add a static address). Now, I go to my router and configure my firewall there. NOW I can restart, plug in the ethernet, and BAM! A working machine!
Linux:
dhcpcd eth0
ifconfig eth0
ping -c 3 google.com
echo "huray! teh intran3tz!" -
Show 51 - 100 of 354 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is