Printable View
I'm not sure of the logic Gates is using, but he said yesterday words to the effect that viruses aren't bad, that they make Windows more secure than Apple or Linux. I heard this on Tech TV. It was said during a speech in England as he prepares to receive his honorary knighthood. It's nice to know he thinks Windows is more secure than Apple or Linux.
They suggested that maybe he should have said "eventually Windows would be as secure as Mac and Linux."
what he basically means is that every single microsoft product has a big damn target drawn on it, every hacker, coder, cracker, virus writer is out for blood, and has been for years, if linux or mac got for a second the kind of negative attention that microsoft has had since it's inception, they wouldn't last 10 seconds online. however Mr Gates is forgetting that those who write linux code are the very same geeks who tear him a new ******* on a daily basis, making IT the most secure OS there is.
IMHO, Linux isn't the most secure OS in the world. That honour would have to go to OpenBSD. Last time I checked, it hadn't had a single hole in the default install.Quote:
making IT the most secure OS there is
Cheers,
cgkanchi
Perhaps he refers to the financial security of Ms which has billions in the bank while the others must contend for scraps.
Quote:
Originally posted here by cgkanchi
IMHO, Linux isn't the most secure OS in the world. That honour would have to go to OpenBSD. Last time I checked, it hadn't had a single hole in the default install.
Cheers,
cgkanchi
Since when is the most secure OS measured by how it comes with a base install? I would have to agree with the educational/government system of rating the security of a system based on the mechanisms that are made available to the administrator to secure the system, not the base configuration.
Basing your criteria on vulnerabilities found in the base install assumes that every single part of the OS has been checked and that there is not 1 single vulnerability. When in actuality there is no data to support this argument. Just because a vulnerability hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean that one can't exist. However with security classifications based on testing procedures such as the DOD TCSEC tests you have a solid baseline to go upon when comparing the security of a system.
OpenBSD does not have an A1 redbook rating, so it is far from being the most secure OS.
Can you tell me what comes in the OpenBSD default install? From what I hear, it is virtually nothing. Sure, it's simple to make an secure OS, if nothing is included. Look what is included with Windows, everything from a web browser, to an email reader, to a media player, to IM software. Not to mention, it's very easy to install software on Windows, compared to Linux. Also, there is a hole in the defualt install of OpenBSD. I wouldn't say it was the securist.. I could throw togeather a Linux distro with the kernel, and bash, and violla, I have a mostly secure OS.
That isn't to say that Windows is secure itself. I definatly wouldn't say it is the most secure OS, nor would I say that it is more secure than Linux. (I've never used Macs enough to tell) Look at all the backages you can install, when you first install SuSE, it can be up to like 6 gigs, whereas Windows is only 1 1/2 or 2 gigs, yet Windows seems to have more holes, virus', etc. Yes, I would partly agree that it is becasue "hackers" are trying to dis-prove Windows, but let's not forget that Linux is a major OS now, and it does get attacked big time, people want more of a challange, or they want to look "3j33t" (I use that term loosly) they go after Linux.
Now... I wouldn't say there is one most secure OS out there, just that any OS is as secure as you make it.
Peace
MB
True that, perhaps I overgeneralized, I should've said *nix, meaning the range of unix based operating systems, INCLUDE the most secure OS, which, I agree, would have to be Open BSD.Quote:
Originally posted here by cgkanchi
IMHO, Linux isn't the most secure OS in the world. That honour would have to go to OpenBSD. Last time I checked, it hadn't had a single hole in the default install.
Cheers,
cgkanchi
I thought OpenBSD had a couple of holes? they no longer advertise it as never having had a hole on the webite. Yes, just checked there website and it says "only one remote hole in seven years", which isn`t bad.
As for most secure, and following on from Mohaughn, what about all the B1 and B2 OS's out there? Trusted solaris, Pitbull etc... OpenBSD, Linux etc.. aren`t even in the same league as those things when it comes to security (mandatory v discretionary access controls etc..). Although using the broad *nix range we could include those in there.
Well I will nominate my two Acorns running the RISC OS ;)
If I wanted a virus or exploit I would probably have to write it myself :D
Cheers
What I find ironic about the whole thing is that the argument used to be "Windows only gets attacked more often because more people use it. If as many used Linux, it would have the same number of holes"
Now the argument is "Windows is more secure because of this behavior (getting attacked)"
Twisted logic, maybe just a little?
:p
Nope, I can see that.
You are in a 62 ton main battle tank being shelled? tanks are made and dynamically developed for this sort of thing so most of them bounce off?
Or you are in the officers' mess back at GHQ.............no protection, but no one is shooting YET?
What happens when they do?
:)
Cheers
I've heard of a few BSD holes, but that's just my point, a FEW. Not nearly as much as any other OS, and not nearly as serious.
LMAO http://support.microsoft.com/default...5Bln%5D;833786 LMAO, its starting to look like IE can't be fixed , remember if you are using IE don't click links LMAO
pardon me if I take your analogy and run with it, but...Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
Nope, I can see that.
You are in a 62 ton main battle tank being shelled? tanks are made and dynamically developed for this sort of thing so most of them bounce off?
Or you are in the officers' mess back at GHQ.............no protection, but no one is shooting YET?
What happens when they do?
:)
Cheers
MS is more like a series of battle tanks built by the swiss, a country full of people who would rather avoid war themselves, but don't mind selling their tanks to people that dont. Meanwhile, that tank keeps failing, resulting in the deaths of everything inside, and rather tan redesign, they offer free restoration and maintainance for obliterated tanks. BSD is more like a series of battletanks that haven't gained popularity, so have spent their entire existence under constant wargame testing... BY A US/GERMAN COLLABORATION, a few countries of people who know war better than anyone. hehe, analogies are fun!
I am afraid that is part of my point..................windoze is a front line live ammo environment?Quote:
wargame testing
The rest haven't really been there.....yet?
Cheers
As we always used to say...... You can't test tactics without live rounds...... Wargaming, while fun, usually doesn't come up with astounding new exploits. It's the live firing environment that does that.