September 30th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Yeah I seem to recall Forrester getting their knuckles wrapped over research done for Micros**t.
Wasn't this because MS sponsered Forrester?
The study appears to be sometime after the "legislations" so who knows :/
# Now if I ever needed inspiration,
Right about now where I lose my patience,
September 30th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Everybody started bashing Forrester (they published a survey "proving" Windows was more secure then Linux) because the survey was bought and payed for by MS.
Originally posted here by akshayakrsh
sirdice i dont think this was the reason at all
They're (CHIP) comparing themselves with Forrester because they've published an article that "proves" the same. And they'll probably get flamed for the same thing...
Without knowing how and what they tested, there's no way to tell if their "proof" is valid.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
September 30th, 2004, 04:15 PM
hey i dont know about what u r talkin but the result was actually proved by takin all of these OSs and installing them them they were checked for their vulnerability and then all of their respective patches, updates were downloaded and then they were checked again and the results after both the experiments were actually testified before they were out! i m not tellin this coz it was just written in the magazine but i m telling u this coz i was already aware of this survey even before it was started!
September 30th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Were you part of the survey? Do we actually know HOW the survey was done?
i m not tellin this coz it was just written in the magazine but i m telling u this coz i was already aware of this survey even before it was started!
That all said, none of this makes any diddly-do if people don't update and if Microsoft releases their updates as is needed (and not necessarily when they want to make a big show about it). Add to that the fact that security is still mainly the realm of the person that looks after the box. I can apply all the patches to my XP I want but if my password is "password" all the patches, AV and firewalls in the world ain't gonna protect me against my own stupidity.
September 30th, 2004, 04:37 PM
well i agree to your point but in that case a virus or a trojan or any program like that wont affect u more but the humans who are actually very keen to do some mischevious things! isnt it? as if the survey i was its part just for the beginning but i know each and every step that was actuallt followed!
September 30th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Just because the steps were followed, doesn't mean that the interpretation of the data was done "unbiasedly". You have to realize that one of the big reasons why we're being picky as to the how is that this data can be swayed to give an impression of strong security and then users get a false sense of security ("It's secure.. I don't need to worry about the password").
as if the survey i was its part just for the beginning but i know each and every step that was actuallt followed!
Additionally, no offense to you, but how do I know that you're not just some Microsoft lackey who thinks as MS thinks and sees the world through those glasses? If this was done independently, widely publicly and with peer-review and acceptance, I'd be more inclined to accept it.
Also, what does "safe" versus "safest" mean? Safe from..? Worms? Even with the best AV I get worms on occassion on my machine (and it was an updated AV). AVs are dependent on the signatures they use. Firewalls are dependent on how they are configured. If I use an insecure-copy of IE, I run the risk of spyware and hijacking mechanisms.
No system, IMHO, no matter how well you patch, how good the AV or firewall is, is 100% secure. And to accept that and promote it does the industry no good, IMO.
September 30th, 2004, 04:44 PM
For the cost of M$ XP it souldn't have hole to begin with. Beside even if they have fixed the problems that were in xp when they released it we all know how good most people are about updating.
XP = Extra pain for me and Extra Profit for Microshaft
September 30th, 2004, 04:52 PM
That's impossible. You can't ever hope to successfully release an OS without holes, even if you're big bad Microsoft. If you've had even the smallest experience in programming, you can likely see this. There are millions upon millions of lines of code in Windows, all written by countless different programmers. There is absolutely no way to eliminate human error 100%, consequently. Therefore, you have to learn by discovering those holes as time elapses after you release the product.
For the cost of M$ XP it souldn't have hole to begin with. Beside even if they have fixed the problems that were in xp when they released it
As far as the survey, the big red flag is that patched XP was rated with a "0" risk level. That's impossible. EVERY OS has a risk level of some sort.
September 30th, 2004, 04:54 PM
well Ms.Mittens u can believe that i m not a microsoft freak coz first of all i dont trust microsoft either, secondly i hav a notebook installed with MAC OS10 and other operating system on my pc is TURBOLINUX! see i m the mixture of all and u will have to believe that when u have 2 or more things of a kind, U ALWAYS COMPARE THEM, dont u?
for the difference between safe n safest: the difference is safest means inbuilt capability of protecting itself and by safe it means capability exists but still some help is required to reach the safest level.
there's no person in this world who'll not agree to this statement that " NO COMPUTER IS 100% SECURE!!!" so what i can say that is nothing is perfect but we can atleast try to move towards it! thats what i found with MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP SERVICE PACK2
September 30th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Well, I can be content with that argument then. At least you thought it out.