If Microsoft wasn't microsoft

I pose a question to all.

We are all conversing on AO, discussing the latest patches and techniques for protecting our networks and machines. Most of us have at one time or another slapped Uncle Bill's Frankenstine around, but this brings me to a question.

If microsoft didn't have 99% of the market wouldn't we all be talking about Steve Job's Frankenstine (god help us) or someone elses Frankenstine?

I know that most of the crack attempts and viruses are focused on Microsoft products, but what I don't here about is *nix viruses or crack attempts. Is it because most crackers/hackers don't care about Mac or *nix machines or is there something special about them that makes them so different that they just don't get pounded?

Bio

What are you talking about, there are plenty of attempts on *nix and mac systems not as many as against M$, but there are alot.

Check google. You will come up with plenty. **** I have a book with nothing but exploits and virus's that were for *nix. It is a pretty good book. Got to dig that one up sometime.

The reason that M$ gets hit more is because more people use it.

Let me explain it like this, if you ran a football team and you were playing a team that they had this one Running back that did nothing but run, I mean this guy averaged 60 hand offs a game. What would you do, you would put most of your effort into that one guy that takes up most of the Market/running. Now you still have this other running back that runs alot but not as much as the other one.

I hope that helps you understand. Though trust me there is alot of effort put into *nix cracks and exploits.

It is a volume industry?

Windows and IE have the volume, so they get the attention?

Cheers

Hey come looking for my RISC machine some day :)

Hmm, considering only a handfull of *NIX virii even exist, and most are proof of concept, I think that may have something to do with it. And even though I don't want to admit it, Mac is very secure. But I still hate them as a company. Maybe if they dropped those damn price tags down I would try them. But paying $3,000.00.....No, I could buy like 5 PCs for that price.

And yes, I do believe *NIX is more secure than Windows. If you took every version of Windows, and every version od *NIX, Windows would be alot more insecure than the *NIX OSs. As most say, Open BSD is the most secure OS in the world. Also, alot of secure/trusted systems exist that are UNIX variants.

I have yet to see a Trusted Windows.

Windows was always designed to make the life easy for end users by offering cutting edge GUI.....

It was meant to even let a lame user use the PC and conduct common activities with almost no configuration.... Anything goes wrong CTRl -ALT - DEL and you are back to your work... Even if machine restarts on its own.. no problems majority of time.. Windows will boot after running the Scandisk (most of the time)


Other OS are never so user friendly... They had lot of configuration to be made..... and in short needed some level of expertise to use the system.. offlate there are good GUI for Linux..

Again MS binds with almost all the majproty of hardware available today... I have known how long it takes to set the printer on linux.... especially if u are using a custom printer... It had actually taken us 2 weeks to search for a driver..... All this implies that MS products comes with lot of per-configuration.. which surely shall live some doors opens.....

Imagine.. A situation u are developing a stadium....

Now for ease if you create say 100 entry doors.... all this doors also become a source of vulnerability.... I guess u have to apply the law of demand and supply .... How much of comfort do I desire and how much of compromise Am it willing to do.....

Nihil rightly mentioned... It is a volume business.... MS is undoubtedly the most popular OS atleast on the Desktop front.....

MS is undisputed leader in Office Automation ......

MS is a major player in Email programs

MS is a leader for Internet Browsers....

Incidentally it also ends up being a target of many hackers........

I'd be an bit if if to say that about browsers. Alot of people are using open source browsers now. Mozilla has become popular, and so has Opera. And good ol links is still around too. Also, people use the AOL browser, for the poor bastards who use AOL.

And e-mail...Na, *NIX has alot more email clients than Microsoft, and they work much better.

Anyone remember when Microsoft had the FAQs thing on their site? When it admitted that Outlook spread virii like a cheap whore? Lol, that was great "It is unceratin if any other email clients allow viruses to spread themselves as Outlook does. Check with the company that makes your email program to be sure".

That was taken down quickly.

Pine, Mutt, Kmail, and Ximian are my favorite email programs, and I use them daily. I like something about each one of of them, and so I use them all.

I think what Bio was reffering more too is not so much why/how/etc microsoft has so many exploits, its that hackers tend to snicker and sneer when a MS exploit is realeased, but act like *nix has nothing wrong with it etc. I may be way off though hehe....

I agree whislersec, when Windows has an updated patch or exploit the *nix(*BSD) zealots go nuts. But when a *nix(*BSD) distro releases a patch or is discovered to have an exploit, they worry more about patching their servers than the windows users saying to them "And your mocking us why? Because you never have exploits?" So point taken, and I completely agree with Bio.

Microsoft---> Discovers vulnerability, releases no information. 6+ months later, a patch is released.

*nix--> Discovers vulnerability, releases all information. Within 24h, 85% of the *nix computers world-wide are patched. Within a week, 97% of those patches.

THAT's the difference.

All OSes need patches, and all OSes have vulnerabilities. Microsoft is just inept at handling them.

I would like very much so to see where you get those statistics, and with that information bringing the bugs on bugzilla/trak that are 8 - 9 months old for gaim and various other peices of software.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
I would like very much so to see where you get those statistics, and with that information bringing the bugs on bugzilla/trak that are 8 - 9 months old for gaim and various other peices of software.

---

There is a difference between a bug, and a security vunerability, but the point as I see it is if it known that gaim has a security vunerability and it is published, you have the choice not to use it.

But there is no reason why M$ couldn't do that for their products, and also patch them quickly..... But that's another thread.

Steve

Well, if Microsoft wasn't Microsoft, I would still have my job at Corel or even at IBM for that matter, but the fact is that Microsoft is the big monster and we have to deal with it. I wish you could have been in that Corel building, the day they told 500 'Microsoft Haters' that they were closing down in Orem, you should have seen how fast these people changed their tune the next day when Microsoft was inside our building hiring people away. So I guess what I am trying to say is that if Microsoft didn't exist, hackers would point their techniques and cracking code towards some other company's products, but then maybe people wouldn't hate Microsoft so much and they would be hating, let's say the monopoly power of Linus' own company, Linux Co. or some other company like that because people in the software industry need standards, if you can't agree then you don't remember the time when there were enough choices to go crazy between what new operating systems we had to choose from for our software to run in.[shadow]This is just my own opinion, it doesnt represent anything of which Bill Gates or Microsoft's want my opinion to be, jajajaa[/shadow]

Lol if Microsoft wasn't Microsoft we would all be using Amiga version 23, OS/7, or MacOS. Perhaps the lastest Dr.DOS 75 or who knows. People bitched about windows but still used it and bought it in droves to replace all those other operating systems. Sure Bill used tactics and hard line business deals that tossed them to the side. But I always found windows to be the best in terms of choice in cards and peripherals and games and software. Then linux came along, perhaps if it came along earlier, things would also be different. But if MS wasn't MS, umm IBM would rule? Or what if IBM didn't license the ability to Microsoft to sell their software to other vendors? The PC clone would have never been born and we'd all be stuck with Big Blue or DEC mainframes with crappy IBM PCs. Compaq would have never come about and ruin DEC or merge with HP. It's crazy when you think about it. Mac probably would have won out and stuck with proprietary networking crap and we'd all be stuck with AppleTalk. lol.
Microsoft provided open hardware standards, anyone could make something and build a driver for it.