Printable View
ATTENTION!! All the windows xp users. according to the latest survey conducted by Chip people it has come out that vulnerability of different operating systems(standard) as follows:
Win XP : 10(dangerous)
Linux : 6 (unsafe)
Mac OSX : 2(safe)
and after installing all the updates and patches available on the net and using a firewall n a AV, here's hoe the figures changed:
Linux : 3 (safe)
Mac OSX : 2(safe)
Windows XP: Surprise its 0 ( SAFEST)
so what r u waiting for upgrade ur windows right now!
Do you have a link to this survey?
yea but xp is the only one that after installing updates.... who knows if you'll be more valunerable or even if your computer will boot... LOL...... I'll take linux anyday.
What exacly did they test? And how?
A link to that survey would be great.
Ok.Quote:
so what r u waiting for upgrade ur windows right now!
sorry guys i dont have the link to this survey coz i found it in the september'04 issue of chip magazine but i m sure u'll find one on the website of CHIP
This perhaps?Quote:
sorry guys i dont have the link to this survey coz i found it in the september'04 issue of chip magazine but i m sure u'll find one on the website of CHIP
http://www.chip-india.com/coverstory...637f82d3e4c33a
You need to subscribe to be able to read the rest :(
Wasn't this because MS sponsered Forrester?Quote:
Even as we settle down to tell this story, we’ve resigned ourselves to the inevitable. A storm of indignant protests will follow and advocates of each Operating System will hurl obscenities at us for having sold our souls. That is pretty much the same thing that Forrester Research (www.forrester.com), a research firm, had to face when it released the outcome of a year-long study in March 2004 which compared the types and seriousness of security holes in Windows as opposed to that in various distributions of Linux.
i think this will help!
sirdice i dont think this was the reason at all
Yeah I seem to recall Forrester getting their knuckles wrapped over research done for Micros**t.Quote:
Wasn't this because MS sponsered Forrester?
http://www.internetweek.com/shared/p...cleID=15202254
The study appears to be sometime after the "legislations" so who knows :/
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.Quote:
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.
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!
Were you part of the survey? Do we actually know HOW the survey was done?Quote:
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. :D
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!
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").Quote:
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.
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
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.Quote:
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.
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
Well, I can be content with that argument then. At least you thought it out. ;)
thanks for the compliment but we need to get thing sorted especially if we are the ones who started it! isnt it?
Yes I realize that.Quote:
Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
That's impossible. You can't ever hope to successfully release an OS without holes, even if you're big bad Microsoft.
I just don't like what seem to be Microsoft's attitude of lets get it on the shelf then worry about any problems later.
yeah i agree to that too!
If you're running linux and you think it comes without holes you should start looking into updating your system. There isn't an OS out there that doesn't need to be updated.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And if you post back your OS I'm sure someone here can help you update.
Well, to play devil's advocate (after all, Pooh's not here ;))....Quote:
I just don't like what seem to be Microsoft's attitude of lets get it on the shelf then worry about any problems later.
This seems to be a no-win situation for MS. Because why is MS being criticized so over the 2006 release of Longhorn? Because it's taking so long! Why were they criticized for previous versions of Windows? Because it didn't take long enough!
See what I'm saying? I don't really have an opinion either way myself yet, as I've seen both arguments made, but it's worth thinking about...
Micros**t had to sacrifice its brand spanking new file-system WinFS to release Longhorn by 2006.
Personally I would have waited; but I like new-shiney gadgets
Three types of falsehood:Quote:
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
Lies
Damn Lies
Statistics
No matter what the situation, people will need access to raw data to allow them selves to make their own opinion, biased or otherwise ........
OR: they need to see the COMPLETE set of parameters that were used in the testing environment.
Sorry for the double post, but this just stood out, and an edit didn't allow me to access the thread fast enough:
from akshayakrsh:
from SirDiceQuote:
sorry guys i dont have the link to this survey coz i found it in the september'04 issue of chip magazine but i m sure u'll find one on the website of CHIP
from MsMQuote:
You need to subscribe to be able to read the rest
Quote:
Were you part of the survey? Do we actually know HOW the survey was done
from akshayakrsh:
So, akshayakrsh;Quote:
as if the survey i was its part just for the beginning but i know each and every step that was actuallt followed!
you WERE in the test, so you were registered ?
you need to be registered to see the WHOLE test ?
you didn't have the link: but you do now ......
Any chance that you could use said link, find said info, and post it here ?
And PLEASE stop with the one word / line answers.
And add some details to your responses.
it's like trying to strike a match on jelly trying to follow this.
Very true!Quote:
Originally posted here by muert0
If you're running linux and you think it comes without holes you should start looking into updating your system. There isn't an OS out there that doesn't need to be updated.
I guess my problem is that linux is free and Windows is far from free but you have to invest the same amout of time securing the OS. But in the end what does it really matter, you have an OS and you need to plug the hole what ever it is. So good for Microsoft keep up the good work.
Use the tool that will work best for you(although I wish people would put more effort into learning a little about said tool). I feel more comfortable using linux or openbsd, so that is what I use 90% of the time. XP gets the other 10%, although I will spend more time fixing XP problems.(maybe because I don't know as much about XP as I do about the linux distros I use)
One thing nobody mentioned/questioned: what kind of flaws were the OSes tested for, and what installation was made of Linux? Not distribution wise, I mean number of applications... Fedora Core, for example, comes on 3 CDs. Everybody that can open their mouth and say they know Linux realizes that the OS itself doesn't take that much space; if it was a bootstrapped text-based Gentoo distribution, updated, then I'd like to see some results aswell. Install minimum Windows and minimum Linux and test then.
I already mentioned what kind of flaws, and by that I mean remote, local, privilege escalation, everything... what kind of a vuln it was etc. So I'm still sketchy about many things.
I get free MS licenced software through my University. Well, OSes and .NET, but I don't know to what degree I will be using them... want to test the Server for now, will see what else later. So for the next five years my choices can be entirely based on what I like more since both Linux and Windows cost me the same [two or three blank CDs :)]
But anyway, the original thread poster has some gaps to fill I feel.
I would put money on it that MS somehow "sponsered" the survey. Also, what about this JPEG virus, has MS fixed that?
SP2 is not vulnerable to the jpeg exploit as far as I know.
Edit: Someone sent me a PM that SP2 was vulnerable to the jpeg exploit so I'll post a few articles and if you want to hunt down the source to the exploit it says SP2 isn't vulnerable.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/36629.html
http://www.microsoft.com/security/bu...0409_jpeg.mspx
And I don't feel like hunting the article SDK posted but it says it there too. The source is in that thread if you want to hunt it down.