"THE" reason why M$ O/S are not so secure
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: "THE" reason why M$ O/S are not so secure

  1. #1
    Fastest Thing Alive s0nIc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,584

    Cool "THE" reason why M$ O/S are not so secure

    i was watching a documentary and found out why M$ "cant" build a very secure software. It is because as they say

    "users dont want to use softwares that are so secure that they cant use it"

    I dont remember who said it but he was a M$ software specialist...

    So there you go.. the answer to the question "why is M$ softwares never secure enough?"

    They want their softwares to be more "usable" than "secure".

    Why is linux very secure? because its not user friendly...

    Why is Windows not so secure? because it is VERY user friendly...
    Share on Google+

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    95

    Talking

    Hum.. I thought this was rather obvious. Systems that are so simple that everyone can use them cannot have fargoing security. Also, 90% of the computer-using people are using M$. This creates a certain opportunity. Since allmost everyone uses it, many are busy finding holes in it too. I wouldn't dare blame it completely on the user-friendly aspect though.
    Remember when they built DOS? It was nothing but a bad copy of C/PM but it was STANDARD. So they got wre they're now. Still, I'm not surprised by anything when it comes to M$....

    Grtz,
    Share on Google+

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    472
    That's no good excuse for buliding an insecure OS. What about MAC, it's pretty secure, isn't it? And usable too.

    The problem is all the usable features add many lines of code that need to be checked for security holes. That takes a lot of effort and money, which MS don't want to provide. It's easier to release the product, and let the users find the errors. Fixing them is not such a big deal once they're located.
    ---
    proactive
    Share on Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    831
    Well, while I do agree that MS OS's are often really really insecure (unless you harden the box yourself), the user friendly nature of Windows is getting excessive. Fair enough, making an OS user friendly is an admirable goal, leading to increased sales/usage of the system.. But a balance must be struck...
    Having a secure OS which is really difficult to use will benefit only true computer users.. but having a 100% user friendly OS which is horribly insecure will help next to nobody..

    I am actually amazed that nearly every Windows computer active on the net has not been eradicated, as the amount of holes in the Windows OS, (many of which are used in a home / small office situation, and aren't patched/updated) really could allow for destructive worms/virii, hell even dedicated black hats (would require a lot of them though, waaay too many Winboxes out there), to infiltrate and destroy the boxes... Could never happen, could happen tommorow...

    My Question is, if it does happen... Would you pay that price again? Would you settle for an insecure OS.. just because it has a dog to help you find a file for you?
    -Matty_Cross
    \"Isn\'t sanity just a one trick pony anyway? I mean, all you get is one trick. Rational Thinking.
    But when you\'re good and crazy, hehe, the skies the limit!!\"
    Share on Google+

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    400
    I think the ideal situation would be for M$ to release the source code for windows (like THAT will ever happen) you could then go about plugging the holes yourself like you can with freeBSD. Iwas hoping that the anti trust case against M$ would force them to go "open source" but alas...NOT
    Share on Google+

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    590
    This topic arised when Win 95 had to be launched.
    The reason why M$ didn't do much about security is that the marketing dep. of M$ knew that by implementing encryption/firewall and more security features would make the home computer user not wanna use Win95 becvause it would look too complicated.
    It's all about the money.
    Share on Google+

  7. #7
    Share on Google+

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    291
    hmmm.... can anybody say Vishul basic??
    if M$ would actually spend some time on one project rather than pumping out a new OS for every day of the week, maybe they'd have time to fix the problems. I dont suspect they'll ever go open source (which inevitably means waiting and waiting for a service pack or hotfix to patch a problem) so the latency time will always be larger between updates....

    such a sad thing, the world needs the userfriendliness... but I do get sick of doing the mad patch dance constantly.

    It would be easier if there were some sort of well designed and updated repository to provide a simpler way to get ahold of any and all patches from a particular date, microsofts site can get annoying...
    Share on Google+

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    831
    Originally posted by THEJRC
    hmmm.... can anybody say Vishul basic??
    What do you mean by this?
    If your stating that Windows is written in Visual Basic, which is why its insecure, I don't think Windows would be written in VB..
    Any flavour of Windows would be written in some form of C/C++.. Otherwise it would take 2 weeks to load, rather than 20 minutes....

    Could you please clarify your comment about VB?

    Thanks in Advance,
    Matty Cross

    P.S. Oblio, it is unfair to group all linux distributions together. It would be more fair to state that the SuSe linux distribution isn't that secure, if your receiving security advisories every day...
    On Bugtrack 2000 (I think that's the one), Linux distributions had a large number of vulnerabilities discovered.. but it was less than windows.
    -Matty_Cross
    \"Isn\'t sanity just a one trick pony anyway? I mean, all you get is one trick. Rational Thinking.
    But when you\'re good and crazy, hehe, the skies the limit!!\"
    Share on Google+

  10. #10
    oblio
    Guest
    oh and tell me who has a better track record? Redhat? They all distribute their products with insecure programs. And how can you possibly claim windows to be written in C++.
    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •