a note on windows security

as many of you know (and should know), microsoft is constantly being flamed for having terrible security exploits. i have something to say to that... first, microsoft really is not that bad a company, people have a tendency to hate big businesses, chance are that if Linux was as big as microsoft, it would be hugely flamed too... second, a lot of people who are into computer security hate windows. well windows is not that terrible. sure you could say it has more exploits than Linux, but you haveto remember that it is used (and hacked) by millions of more people than Linux is, which means that exploits for it are obviously going to be found more often. third, windows is a far more complex OS than linux is (or probably IS going to be for years). making Windows the most user-friendly OS is going to require tons of more programming and complexity than Linux, and as we all know, with complexity comes problems. making and upgrading the most user friendly OS in the world is not easy... there is one thing i definently agree with people against windows on tho, and that is the introduction of raw sockets. im not going to get into that now, if you want to learn more do some google searches on it, itll come up with quite a bit. but anyways no i am not a microsoft worshipper, i like linux too, but windows has the right to be a more buggy and vulnerable system than Linux, judging by the fact that (i say this one more time) it is the most complex OS in the world. just wanted to state that about Windows for all you Windows Terrorists Freaks...

Lol, that is actually true, because Windows is so much more userfriendly it's also much harder to keep it bug free. It's true people have the tendency to hate big companies. AOL? :D

EDIT:

Quote:

---

there is one thing i definently agree with people against windows on tho, and that is the introduction of raw sockets

---

Do you like the introduction of raw sockets or not?
You can see it either as a bad thing or a good thing, the only thing you would NORMALLY need raw sockets for is to write certain exploits. (Win9x only supports raw sockets over IP).

You bring up a good point, namely, that people always love to hate the big boy on the block. However, I think there are a couple of things you are not considering. Before I state them, let me say that I use both linux and windows, and while I prefer linux, I don't think XP is a bad product.
1. Just because something is more complex does not mean it is better; that is an assumption. I could just as easily say that it is more complex because it was written with no foresight, and not too well at that.
2. Yes, there is definitely a stronger focus on attacking windows boxes cause there are more of them. However, to say that linux would have a similar attack rate if it was in widespread use is again an assumption not backed up by any evidence. XP has taken a big positive step in the security realm, but it was not written to be a multi-user networked os from the beginning (to the extent that linux was) and therefore has been playing catch-up.
3. A lot of people (me included) don't hate so much the product microsoft puts out but the way they operate as a company. It is obvious they broke the law repeatedly to force out all of their competition. They charge damn near as much for an os as a whole new system costs, and when you get it, it's full of holes. So do they spend all of their time and a few of their billions fixing it and then eventually putting out a tremendous product? No. This lack of focus on great software and instead on the almighty dollar is what turns a lot of computer enthusiasts off, I think.
Anyways, who the hell knows. Just a couple of rambling thoughts I had. ;)

/me tosses in some history...

100 years ago big business was a concern. You can read up around 1902 about the Oil Companys and Steel Companys about this. The Steel Company was acturally protected by Tarrifs, so there was even more reason to say they had an unfair advantage. But a few years later, one Mr. Henry Ford came along, became loved by everyone, even became the richest man in the world, and was still loved...escaping these times where rich people were abused...

100 years later...we have computers...

Microsoft has tons of money, and is disliked for being overly big and buggy. People bash M$ for all of this, saying there should be more concern for the consumer. And now Linux, being unknown to many people until SCO came in, is gaining popularity. Many common people still don't know much about Linux, but in a few years it will be widely known. Maybe, like 100 years ago, this more or less unknown Operating System will repeat history and rise up to become the most loved OS in the world?


Well, having a huge research project due soon about Henry Ford sorta keeps me from avoiding things like this, haha. My source of info for the history part of this post was "Henry Ford and Grass-roots America", by Reynold M. Wik.

Will history repeat itself? :D

Deimos: I beg to differ. I have seen many reports that have shown over half of all machines that have been hacked werelinux based , therefore microsoft is not necesarily hacked more than linux, so i think you are wrong in that regard, it is just due to the fact that microsoft has more users than linux, therefore they have a much broader demographic base of people to find and exploit security holes.

simply put, microsoft is not hacked more than linux, and thats not a reason to say any large companya will get flamed simply becuase they are that large.

My opinion is that people get their kicks off tormenting big companies like Microsoft and AOL, so they dedicate their time into finding these exploits rather than for Linux lol. I understand there are people who do it for a better, more secure Windows, but Microsoft should do all this BEFORE releasing their products.

I am not going to bitch about any piece of software unless I could build something better. Sure some of us like Linux more than Windows (for varying reasons) but consider how many man-hours it took to get any modern operating system to the point it is at today.
To me, being able to install an OS and software in under a day and have it run solid for over a year (as my 2K box has) is enough for me, even if it requires 30 minutes of maintenance a month to keep it up to date.
Just my two cents...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Deimos326
sure you could say it has more exploits than Linux, but you haveto remember that it is used (and hacked) by millions of more people than Linux is, which means that exploits for it are obviously going to be found more often.

---

I'd have to disagree with this for two reasons :

1) Linux is open source, making exploits easier to find for your average hacker (i'm not about to get in a debate on the meaning of 'hacker', so don't even try)

2) A large part of the Linux community are hackers (see above note), who have nothing better to do all day than to sift through code looking for said exploits.

That being said, any OS can be just as secure or insecure as any other OS, depending on how the user sets it up. All modern OS's (given the same hardware) are capable of the same things, just have a different way of going about getting them done. In the end, it's just a matter of putting the right 1's and 0's in the right place at the right time.

Hmm..seems like I had another post like this. *shrugs* Ah well...

I pay $39.99 USD and get a shrink warpped copy of Suse 9.0 personal. It comes with everything I need even a book.

I pay $119.00 USD and get a copy of WinXP home. I get a CD with only an OS. No book. No applications except some games.

If I pay for a Rolls Royce I don't want to drive away in a Hyundai.

For what I pay for M$ it should be bug free and secure.

i've been saying shite like this for ages but it dosn't change things...

Somebody coming out and saying something everyone agree's you'll all go streight back to blaming microsoft the next time a MS Blaster virus hits the shelves.