We read the report: Microsoft WIndows is not listed as most secure OS

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Au79, Mar 24, 2007.

  1. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Au79, Mar 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Au79

    Jerry G. Guest

    I don't want to disappoint you, but I know of people with Apple systems
    that have had their share of Trojans and Malwares. Also, the Apple
    system is less of a target, because their market is much smaller than
    that of the PC market.

    --

    Jerry G.


    "Au79" <> wrote in message
    news:nceNh.23749$...
    MacDailyNews - USA

    Microsoft's Windows had twelve (12) "severe" vulnerabilities vs. Apple's
    one (1) "severe" Mac OS X vulnerability that affected no one ...

    <http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13057/>
    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
    Jerry G., Mar 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Au79, Mar 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Au79

    Jerry Attic Guest

    "Jerry G." <> said in news:130b2nj1tlh0l11
    @corp.supernews.com:

    > I don't want to disappoint you, but I know of people with Apple systems
    > that have had their share of Trojans and Malwares. Also, the Apple
    > system is less of a target, because their market is much smaller than
    > that of the PC market.
    >


    He probably knows but his eyes are shut to the possibility.
    Jerry Attic, Mar 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Au79

    elaich Guest

    "Jerry G." <> wrote in news:130b2nj1tlh0l11
    @corp.supernews.com:

    > I don't want to disappoint you, but I know of people with Apple systems
    > that have had their share of Trojans and Malwares. Also, the Apple
    > system is less of a target, because their market is much smaller than
    > that of the PC market.
    >


    Jerry G & Company?

    --
    A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
    Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
    elaich, Mar 26, 2007
    #5
  6. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:nceNh.23749$:

    > MacDailyNews - USA
    >
    > Microsoft's Windows had twelve (12) "severe" vulnerabilities vs. Apple's
    > one (1) "severe" Mac OS X vulnerability that affected no one ...
    >
    ><http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13057/>


    Of course this doesn't take into account the OS X 10.4.9 update which included numerous patches for critical
    vulnerabilities many of which were brought to light by the month of Apple bugs project. More here:

    http://www.sans.org/newsletters/risk/display.php?v=6&i=12&rss=Y#widely1

    As usual the press gets it wrong and tries to distill a complicated subject (computer security) into a simple
    sound bite. This is stated at the end of the article:

    This whole thing would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that this piece of FUD will now get picked up and
    regurgitated by media types who like a good headline regardless of facts and/or who won't read the actual
    report and/or who lack the ability to spot deception and spin.
    Fuzzy Logic, Mar 27, 2007
    #6
  7. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:nceNh.23749$:
    >
    >> MacDailyNews - USA
    >>
    >> Microsoft's Windows had twelve (12) "severe" vulnerabilities vs. Apple's
    >> one (1) "severe" Mac OS X vulnerability that affected no one ...
    >>
    >><http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13057/>

    >
    > Of course this doesn't take into account the OS X 10.4.9 update which
    > included numerous patches for critical vulnerabilities many of which were
    > brought to light by the month of Apple bugs project. More here:
    >


    The article just points out that Apple is more secure than windos by design.
    The 12 to 1 ratio of holes found is typical of windos.

    > http://www.sans.org/newsletters/risk/display.php?v=6&i=12&rss=Y#widely1
    >
    > As usual the press gets it wrong and tries to distill a complicated
    > subject


    Not complicated at all. Stop using windos and you will never have to worry
    about viruses, trojans, spyware, BSOD, slow-downs, and freezes.

    > (computer security) into a simple sound bite. This is stated at
    > the end of the article:
    >


    Just the facts.

    > This whole thing would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that this
    > piece of FUD will now get picked up and regurgitated by media types who
    > like a good headline regardless of facts and/or who won't read the actual
    > report and/or who lack the ability to spot deception and spin.


    The fact that windos has never been a secure operating system, always
    lagging behind Linux and Mac, is the only laughable thing.


    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
    Au79, Mar 29, 2007
    #7
  8. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:O0HOh.231979$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:nceNh.23749$:
    >>
    >>> MacDailyNews - USA
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft's Windows had twelve (12) "severe" vulnerabilities vs.
    >>> Apple's one (1) "severe" Mac OS X vulnerability that affected no one
    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>><http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13057/>

    >>
    >> Of course this doesn't take into account the OS X 10.4.9 update which
    >> included numerous patches for critical vulnerabilities many of which
    >> were brought to light by the month of Apple bugs project. More here:
    >>

    >
    > The article just points out that Apple is more secure than windos by
    > design. The 12 to 1 ratio of holes found is typical of windos.


    Secure by design means nothing. Good intentions don't necessarily equate to a 'more secure' OS. Again I
    will quote the Computer Security article from Wikipedia:

    The early Multics operating system was notable for its early emphasis on computer security by design, and
    Multics was possibly the very first operating system to be designed as a secure system from the ground
    up. In spite of this, Multics' security was broken, not once, but repeatedly.

    Source <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_security>

    >> http://www.sans.org/newsletters/risk/display.php?v=6&i=12&rss=Y#widely1
    >>
    >> As usual the press gets it wrong and tries to distill a complicated
    >> subject

    >
    > Not complicated at all. Stop using windos and you will never have to
    > worry about viruses, trojans, spyware, BSOD, slow-downs, and freezes.


    Are you a used car salesman? While you are less likely to encounter malware in less common OS's to say
    you won't have crashes, slow downs and freezes is laughable. I have many Apple user friends who have
    as many if not more problems with their systems as Windows users.

    >> (computer security) into a simple sound bite. This is stated at
    >> the end of the article:
    >>

    >
    > Just the facts.
    >
    >> This whole thing would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that
    >> this piece of FUD will now get picked up and regurgitated by media
    >> types who like a good headline regardless of facts and/or who won't
    >> read the actual report and/or who lack the ability to spot deception
    >> and spin.

    >
    > The fact that windos has never been a secure operating system, always
    > lagging behind Linux and Mac, is the only laughable thing.


    Windows is a secure as YOU make it. I am not sure where you get your 'fact' from?
    Fuzzy Logic, Mar 29, 2007
    #8
  9. Au79

    Gordon Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:


    > Secure by design means nothing. Good intentions don't necessarily equate
    > to a 'more secure' OS.


    So why are there are NO Linux viruses in the wild? Because the DESIGN of
    Linux makes it very very difficult to infect, that's why.
    Gordon, Mar 29, 2007
    #9
  10. Au79

    Aardvark Guest

    Re: We read the report: Microsoft WIndows is not listed as mostsecure OS

    On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:08:13 +0000, Fuzzy Logic wrote:


    >
    > The early Multics operating system was notable for its early emphasis on computer security by design, and
    > Multics was possibly the very first operating system to be designed as a secure system from the ground
    > up. In spite of this, Multics' security
    > was broken, not once, but repeatedly.
    >


    Saw a wall once. There was a sign on it saying 'Vandal-proof Paint'. As
    well as the sign there was quite a bit of graffiti :). as soon as the
    hax0rs saw 'designed as a secure system from the ground up' do you think
    they hung up their black hats? Nope. Neither do I.

    I bought a Thermos flask a few years ago. Told my mate it was unbreakable.
    Next time I saw it he was driving his car over it. I forgot to mention
    that it was only unbreakable when dropped off a table or some such.


    --
    Registered Linux User 413057.
    Both Mandriva 2007 and Ubuntu 6.06
    You can have it all. My empire of hurt.
    Aardvark, Mar 29, 2007
    #10
  11. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Gordon <> wrote in news::

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Secure by design means nothing. Good intentions don't necessarily equate
    >> to a 'more secure' OS.

    >
    > So why are there are NO Linux viruses in the wild? Because the DESIGN of
    > Linux makes it very very difficult to infect, that's why.


    There have been more than a few for Linux:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses

    Here is a quote from the above page:

    "The security holes that are exploited by the viruses have been fixed in the most recent versions of the Linux
    kernel, so no longer pose any concern AS LONG AS THE KERNEL IS UPDATED REGULARILY."

    So again it's up to the user to ensure their system is kept up to date and properly configured or they can fall
    prey to malicious code.
    Fuzzy Logic, Mar 29, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joe M

    Microsoft not listed with American Council on Education

    Joe M, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,039
    Mark Fugatt [MVP]
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. Au79

    Microsoft's Most Secure OS Yet

    Au79, Feb 15, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    409
    Maximum Dog
    Feb 19, 2007
  3. tom
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    506
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    616
Loading...

Share This Page