[PsychoCoder]

Dark_Nexus, on 27 July 2010 - 02:04 PM, said:

Let's stop kidding ourselves. If you're using a Microsoft product then you didn't really care about security or stability in the first place.

Ok let's stop this. Just because you use *nix doesn't make you somehow superior, and it's getting old. Everyone has the right to chose their own environment, but that doesn't give you (or anyone) the right to bash them because of it. It just gets so old watching people hijack any thread they can to show how superior they are because of the OS they choose to use.

[programble]

Oh, the irony.

On topic:
*nix is more hackable, but less vulnerable to hacking. Windows is more vulnerable to hacking, but less hackable. If you know what I mean.

This post has been edited by programble: 28 July 2010 - 12:25 PM

[Motoma]

Locking down Windows against Piracy is a losing battle.

The harder it becomes, the higher the demand. The higher the demand, the higher the financial gain from success. The higher the financial gain, the higher the incentive to crack it.

Until the machine is no longer in the hands of the end-user, you will not be able to make a program piracy proof. If you have control of the physical hardware you have the capability of subverting every attempt to ensure the software is legitimate.

This post has been edited by Motoma: 29 July 2010 - 07:53 AM

[dorknexus]

PsychoCoder, on 28 July 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

Dark_Nexus, on 27 July 2010 - 02:04 PM, said:

Let's stop kidding ourselves. If you're using a Microsoft product then you didn't really care about security or stability in the first place.

Ok let's stop this. Just because you use *nix doesn't make you somehow superior, and it's getting old. Everyone has the right to chose their own environment, but that doesn't give you (or anyone) the right to bash them because of it. It just gets so old watching people hijack any thread they can to show how superior they are because of the OS they choose to use.

You're absolutely right. Everyone has the right to choose their own environment. But that doesn't mean they are choosing quality products.

[WolfCoder]

Yes, as much as I love Windows 7, I wouldn't have actually gotten a copy if it wasn't really really cheap (and then later free) for me. It's mostly some sort of weird nostalgia, but I'm likely going to completely skip Windows 8 and go on to Windows 9. I don't like the idea of needing an operating system because it's newer.

[jignesh272]

I think MS is still behind the hacker ... hackers are way fast and ahead...

Sorry MS try next time

[Lemur]

Nothing is impenetrable, that's just the way it is, even if it's completely secure from every possible vector tech wise it doesn't fix the human aspect of things and inevitable leaks.

[Tom9729]

Jack Eagles1, on 26 July 2010 - 06:06 AM, said:

For me, this seems like MS going out there, and saying "We're bullet proof now, nobody can hack through our next OS!".

They say this about every version of Windows. Jobs says this about every version of OS X. I'm not even going to point out how many Linux users think they are invulnerable.

[Sergio Tapia]

programble, on 28 July 2010 - 02:24 PM, said:

Oh, the irony.

On topic:
*nix is more hackable, but less vulnerable to hacking. Windows is more vulnerable to hacking, but less hackable. If you know what I mean.

The only reason Windows has more viruses and other nasty things is because it is the dominant consumer OS on the planet. That's where the money is and that's where tremendously talented programmers will target their attacks. Why would anyone target Linux when its share is what, 1.5% at best?

You are blindly saying that Linux is more secure just because you are asked a sudo password to install sofware every time. I'm willing to be the vast majority have no idea what they're talking about.

Microsoft Windows has defenses as well; I can set UAC to maximum capacity and have no virus problems just the same as Linux.

But I have to state this again: You cannot compare an OS that is in the global crosshairs to one that isn't even really used. One is constantly getting targeted, the other isn't even acknowledged.

Hopefully I've changed you mind or at least given you something to think about.

This post has been edited by stapia.gutierrez: 03 August 2010 - 11:52 AM

[Tom9729]

stapia.gutierrez, on 03 August 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

The only reason Windows has more viruses and other nasty things is because it is the dominant consumer OS on the planet. That's where the money is and that's where tremendously talented programmers will target their attacks. Why would anyone target Linux when its share is what, 1.5% at best?

You are blindly saying that Linux is more secure just because you are asked a sudo password to install sofware every time. I'm willing to be the vast majority have no idea what they're talking about.

Microsoft Windows has defenses as well; I can set UAC to maximum capacity and have no virus problems just the same as Linux.

But I have to state this again: You cannot compare an OS that is in the global crosshairs to one that isn't even really used. One is constantly getting targeted, the other isn't even acknowledged.

Hopefully I've changed you mind or at least given you something to think about.

After reading your first sentence I almost instinctively modded you down and gave up on this thread, but then I read the rest of your post and I strongly agree with the parts in bold.

I don't think all Windows security problems fall under the "it has more market share" excuse. That's definitely a big factor, but Microsoft isn't blameless because they have dropped the ball many times (eg. ActiveX, Notepad bypasses UAC, not promoting limited user privileges, vulnerable services enabled by default, no firewall).

[Lemur]

OpenBSD is the most secure OS by far, with only a few noted exploits out of the box, most of which are extremely minor.

Global crosshairs? While you may have a point you forget that all of the major servers and machines that are worth hacking run Linux at ~15% market share and over 2 billion in value, needless to say that's fairly significant.

I'll be honest, I love smug Mac/*Nix users because they're so ridiculously easy to exploit it's almost pathetic (Of course this is done in a legal penetration testing environment with full consent of the owners [which are still smug...].) They make my job far easier to find holes and major security breaches in any network.

The only OS I have major troubles with getting, again, is OpenBSD. Even clean install can be a royal pain to crack. The only times I've been able to do anything to that danged OS is if someone installs their own programs or something vulnerable because the base is a bloody fortress.

Though notably I have no issues whatsoever with Windows machines, you may as well put up a sheet of paper and call it security unless you have some major overhauls to it. It would take a security guru to get windows to be secure whereas an intermediate could get *Nix/Mac and a relitively new can get OpenBSD.

Average time to crack:

Windows

• >= 98 - 2 minutes
  
• 2000/ME - 2 minutes
  
• XP - 2:30 minutes
  
• Vista - 5 minutes
  
• W7 - 10 to 15 minutes

Mac
15-20 minutes (most all versions)

*Nix
20-25 minutes

OpenBSD
4+ hours unless lucky

Do note that all of these tests are either legally consented upon or done on my own servers/computers at home on my own network locally.

[Sergio Tapia]

Here let me highlight my previous post:

Quote

The only reason Windows has more viruses and other nasty things is because it is the dominant consumer OS on the planet.

I agree that there is a reason Linux is the most used server in the world (price and "stability").

[Lemur]

Fair enough, I seem to have missed that part.

[gabehabe]

I can't be bothered to read through this thread, so here's a link about Microsoft and Russia.

http://www.zdnet.co....rvice-40089481/

This post has been edited by gabehabe: 05 August 2010 - 05:13 AM

[WolfCoder]

Lemur, on 03 August 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Fair enough, I seem to have missed that part.

So do lots of other Linux users it seems. Still, I'd love Linux to have more share in the end-user market so people can choose their OS more freely without worrying about supported programs and technology.

In Linux, all you have to do is make sure your ports aren't accessible if you're using it for desktop purposes. That and you know, only use programs you have the source code for or trust. That dockbar app may be cool, but having to add extra servers to your pack list should raise red flags in your head.