February 1st, 2004, 09:03 PM
Windows' Dominance a Hindrance to Security
Click HERE for full story
The sorry state of security on the Internet is only going to get worse unless governments, enterprises and home users make a conscious decision to move away from their addiction to Microsoft Corp.'s software, according to a new report from a group of renowned security experts.
Computers do not have problems, they have users.
February 1st, 2004, 09:39 PM
My tomcat has a better idea of security that those self-appointed dickheads ("renowned security experts" only in their own rather overactive imaginations!)
"The Tower Of Babel is the answer folks...............if nobody can talk to anybody then none of this bad stuff can work"
My tomcat has some news for them.............................neither will anything else!
Check their Corporate stock ratings, academic achievements, major Public Bodies customers, criminal records?
February 1st, 2004, 09:43 PM
Mentioned here and here
Need to be quickier!
February 1st, 2004, 10:10 PM
Are these renowned security experts all linux users? Stopping the use of Windows is not going to increase the security of the internet. Educatiing users (whatever OS they use) and giving them the support they need is likely to have a much greater impact.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
February 2nd, 2004, 02:04 AM
Why is it that folks always blame microsoft? Oh...I know what it is...It's easier to blame somebody that's popular that it is to face the truth of the matter. What needs to be done to fix security on the internet (besides having these morons lined up for a firing squad....any volunteer shooters?) is to quit spreading ignorance of knowledge and ignorance of thought!
I would go on, but R0n1n beat me to it
February 2nd, 2004, 02:41 AM
But would I be allowed to load my own ammo?
Deeeeeerrrrrrr.....................if all operating systems and applications were perfect.........who would want to employ us?
Yeah.education IS a problem, but I still rest my case
February 2nd, 2004, 04:21 AM
Actually 576869746568617 not all of them totally blame MS :
I personally think that MS should be blame for some part but users should also. Well not all users but the ones that are ignorant or not willing to learn.
Although many of the paper's authors are frequent critics of Microsoft, they don't all believe that the software giant should shoulder all of the blame for the lack of diversity.
"I wouldn't put any of the blame on Microsoft. They're a smart company. What are they going to do? Say that in the name of security they're only going to sell half as many products?" asked Schneier, who is often at odds with the Redmond, Wash., company and its security policies. "The blame is going to fall mostly with the buyers. Alternative solutions do exist."
February 2nd, 2004, 01:46 PM
As I always say
OS is safe and secure as person that administer it.
If everybody would use Linux instead of MS Windows, there would be much more viruses for Linux... and I think it would be much more DDoS attacks too... if I'm not wrong, every linux distribution is client and server. Just imagine so much servers in hands of uneducated users...
buh... I like it more when it is safe with people who know how to set it up and use it...
Make your knowledge your deadliest weapon.
February 2nd, 2004, 02:32 PM
I prefer Marcus Ranum's response to the Microsoft Monoculture Hype:
Full Article: Monoculture Myth
There is no "monoculture" here. My system isn't just Windows. My security is effected (and affected) by a bewildering combination of default settings, software patch levels, default firewall rules (I just plugged it in, honest!), browser settings, and antivirus signature sets. We're not in anything like danger of becoming a "monoculture" unless every system was running the same software load-out, security policy, antivirus product, and patch level. In spite of the dearest wishes of countless system administrators, that simply isn't going to happen! So, as much as I hate to say it, Sun's marketing people may have been right, "The network is the computer" - and the network sure as hell isn't going to become a "monoculture" unless Microsoft builds all the firewalls, all the routers, all the switches, all the web accellerators, all the SQL databases and establishes everyone's security, routing, DNS, and update policies.
Ranum links to my comparison of the two points, but you can also see it here. While I do side with Ranum I tried to represent both sides in an unbiased fashion: Microsoft Monoculture
February 2nd, 2004, 07:17 PM
I tend to agree that the real comparison in relation to security issues is not between Windows and Linux but, more the level of the users. I don't think computer security and the common user should be mutally exclusive but for some reason it seems to be that way.
Most of the common users I deal with have no idea what 'patches' are nor have they applied any since they have bought/recieved their machines w/ Windows OS's. This is a clear sign that people are simply not being educated enough on some very basic security related issues.
For some obvious reasons, you would think anyone with half a brain would go with Linux over Windows as an OS (It's free, reliable, comes standard with packet filtering and IDS tools, open source, free applications and tons of other stuff).
Here's where my problem is.
Windows is considered to be 'easier' to use for the common user yet, I sit and watch system after system compromised because the user just wants to 'point and click' and get everything fast and now with complete disregard for security. It's difficult enough to get someone to keep up with their AV scans, let alone patches, firewalls, IDS's, trojan scanning etc. So what exactly would injecting Linux (with all its fancy tools) to the common user do? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. It would be like giving a 17 year old keys to a Formula One car and educating them just enough to go out and crash into a wall.
That's my outake on the matter.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his - George Patton