6 Months On, Vista Security Still Besting Linux

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/27/024204

well what will our resident linux trolls (corona_coder, eagle etc etc) have to say now!

I know exactly what they have to say because it's a constant.

We've had this discussion, right?

Too early to raise the flag?

RoyalSchrubber wrote:

Too early to raise the flag?

binah wrote:

The best way to ensure your computer will get viruses and spyware is to use the Windows operating system.

Nice report by a Microsoft sponsored party to be testing outdated software such as Ubuntu 6.06.   The fact is Microsoft has not and cannot fix Windows.  i dont care how many people claim Windows is more secure.  What OS gets hacked 98% of the time?  Windows,  What OS will get malware more than likely?  Windows.  Microsofts days with Windows is done.  Microsofts server product and HPC offering, a joke.  Not even a funny one.

Is there a reason for that? Yes. More people use Windows, therefore its the obvious target. Windows is a UI OS - so less complicated people are going to be using it. If you're running Linux, chances are you know what your doing and wont click on that "Download this to get a free iPod" banner. Must we have this argument again?

Lloyd_Humph wrote:

Is there a reason for that? Yes. More people use Windows, therefore its the obvious target. Windows is a UI OS - so less complicated people are going to be using it. If you're running Linux, chances are you know what your doing and wont click on that "Download this to get a free iPod" banner. Must we have this argument again?

What OS gets hacked 98% of the time? 

What OS is used on 98% of computers?

quick look thru http://www.zone-h.org/component/option,com_topatt/Itemid,49/ and it seems most of the websites hacked are running php on apache on linux..

Delete. And I wont even bother posting a reply to that, so don't think you're worth any of our precious time. I feel a thread lock coming on (lets make it political, and then something will get done)

binah wrote:



Lloyd_Humph wrote: Is there a reason for that? Yes. More people use Windows, therefore its the obvious target. Windows is a UI OS - so less complicated people are going to be using it. If you're running Linux, chances are you know what your doing and wont click on that "Download this to get a free iPod" banner. Must we have this argument again?

I'm glad someone finally admits Windows is designed for idiots.

corona_coder wrote:

Nice report by a Microsoft sponsored party to be testing outdated software such as Ubuntu 6.06.  

Let's see...

Linux advocates tell us that, while Linux desktop use is low, Linux is used a lot as a server OS.  Therefore, the logic should go that you should also see a lot of viruses and worms for Linux.

But here is the problem with that logic: Let's take all those Linux severs, remove them out of their safe server environment behind corporate firewalls, put millions of average Joe Blows in front of them and let them click on random links left, right and center.  Only when you create that environment can you truly compare virus/worm counts.  And even then it is not that simple (see below). The whole point is that Joe Blow is far most likely to be sitting in front of a Windows box, compared to Linux or Mac.  This is not a linear scaling equation. 

The equation contains the following parameters:

1) The likelihood of the compromised box "seeing" another box that are equally vulnerable. With Windows, you are 90% sure that any other box you can come in contact with are of the same type, and can therefore also be infected. This adds up quickly, as each propagation sees the same odds, so the likelihood of seeing another vulnerable system (of the same type) becomes: 90% x 90% x 90% for Windows, and 5% x 5% x 5% for Mac (as an example. Linux is even less).  After those 3 generations, the likelihood of "seeing" another vulnerable box for Windows is 79%, while for Mac it is 0.0125%.  No wonder the Mac has no viruses - it's practically impossible to spread with that low marketshare.

2) The sheer number of systems out there means bigger returns for the same effort. Obviously the juiciest target will be the one that can net the highest number of compromised systems with the same amount of effort spent on creating the exploit code.

3) The fact that people running Linux are probably computer geeks who know not to click on random links, open questionable emails, or run silly executables.  No, this does not mean Windows users are "stupid", just that it has the largest percentage of users that use a computer as just another appliance and is only interested in reading emails, browsing around, and are not interested in being a computer geek (you know, people like doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc also fall into this category).

Anyway, you can't say that Linux or Mac has x% users, therefore it should have x% of viruses/worms.  Those different parameters combine into a non-linear equation that results in Windows being far more desirable as a target for malware writers than any other platform. 

Bas wrote:



binah wrote:  I'm glad someone finally admits Windows is designed for idiots.

A bit more effort, but you're still not quite there, sport. Corona can probably teach you the finer knacks of trolling, maybe you could email him.

binah wrote:

So basically you saying is that OS X and Linux are indeed more secure then Windows, and that Windows users are morons in one nicely constructed academic style essay. I envy you.

Oh wow...is that really what you got from that? I mean seriously...

:blink: