Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › Microsoft Claims Vista Is More Secure Than Linux
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft Claims Vista Is More Secure Than Linux - Page 4

post #31 of 37
Don't know a lot about Linux yet but I still got a good laugh from that claim!
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X4 965 ASUS M4A79 Deluxe 9800GTx2 2x2G OCZ Reapers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500G WD Black LiteOn CD/DVD R/W Win7 64 22'' ws Acer AL2223W 
KeyboardPowerMouse
MS KU462 Natural SS DA750 MS 5 button 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X4 965 ASUS M4A79 Deluxe 9800GTx2 2x2G OCZ Reapers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500G WD Black LiteOn CD/DVD R/W Win7 64 22'' ws Acer AL2223W 
KeyboardPowerMouse
MS KU462 Natural SS DA750 MS 5 button 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by money11465 View Post
Exactly. I really couldn't have said it better myself.

Microsoft: "Vista more secure than Linux"
Apple: "Safari is the fastest"
Don Norman: "Waxed cars are faster"

All lies, and they expect you to believe them because they are the OMGBBQ corporations who would never lie and are so professional and official.
You forgot Sun's claim about Solaris: "The most advance operating system on the planet."
BlackMesa
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II x6 Gigabyte XFX RF460 16gb G.Skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
OCZ Vertex2 Sata II Coorsair Force GS Sata III Debian (testing) Shimian 27" 
KeyboardMouse
Filco w/ blue cherries Who needs a mouse? 
  hide details  
Reply
BlackMesa
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II x6 Gigabyte XFX RF460 16gb G.Skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
OCZ Vertex2 Sata II Coorsair Force GS Sata III Debian (testing) Shimian 27" 
KeyboardMouse
Filco w/ blue cherries Who needs a mouse? 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangerousHobo View Post
You forgot Sun's claim about Solaris: "The most advance operating system on the planet."
Yeah but everybody says that, Microsoft, Apple, Novell, Canonical etc. At least Solaris has the most advanced file system (ZFS) to add some creediblity to that statment.
HAL9000
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 4800+ X2 "Toledo" MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum MSI GeForce 7900GS 512MB Overclock Edition 2GB OCZ Platinum DDR400 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2xSeagate Barracuda 250GB 7200RPM 3.0Gb/s SabayonLinux x86 3.4 Optiquest Viewsonic Q20wb Antec Earthwatts 500W 
CaseMouse
Thermaltake Tsunami Dream Razer Diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
HAL9000
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 4800+ X2 "Toledo" MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum MSI GeForce 7900GS 512MB Overclock Edition 2GB OCZ Platinum DDR400 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2xSeagate Barracuda 250GB 7200RPM 3.0Gb/s SabayonLinux x86 3.4 Optiquest Viewsonic Q20wb Antec Earthwatts 500W 
CaseMouse
Thermaltake Tsunami Dream Razer Diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 37
:lachen

I read the title and really cracked up...

IN YOUR DREAMS Billy Goats..
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
133MHZpow
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel P4 Soyo VIA P4M266  Nvidia 5200FX 1GB 
Optical DriveOSKeyboardPower
LiteOn DVD ROM Antix Linux Xtech Generic generic 400w 
CaseMouse
Compaq  BenQ optical 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidgnome229 View Post
Man - so many people in this thread parroting the market share myth. If the number of users was the reason that hackers target an OS every virus would be written for linux since the web runs on linux (mostly). Servers are much juicier targets than your grandmother's P3, but much harder to hack becuase they are built from a secure base (unix). In the server world a huge percentage of malware/exploits targets windows server even though its market share is very low. This is because hacking windows systems is easier for a number of reasons that I would be glad to go into should anybody so wish.

As to the article - the number of exploits in an OS is an idiotic metric to use when considering OS security. Using it completely disregards the fact that most exploits are performed through software running on an OS rather than through some facet of the OS itself. The fact that the number they're using to compare Vista is 12 vulnerabilities shows just how ridiculous their statements are even if you go by their measurement system.

Metrics in general are idiotic to use when considering OS security unless you use a whole lot at the same time. The important things to consider are how the OS handles different requests and what protections it offers to system and users' files
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
I am running Vista x64. I ran Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, and XP Professional in the past.

I have never ran into any serious issues in terms of virus's / trojans / worms. Not once.

It is my belief that all major OS's are fairly secure and completely vulnerable at the same time. If a skilled "hacker" wants to get into your system, they will. But how many of these James Bond hackers are sitting around waiting to steal my paypal account?

I think the primary threat to computers is not the OS. It is the user of the OS. I have had no issues with any of my Microsoft operating systems. However, I can name hundreds of people that I know that can fill their system with virus's / trojan / worms in a week.

The security of your system is in the hands of the user. There is nothing MS or Linux can do to save you from yourself.

If you use common sense you will not been plagued by security issues, no matter what OS you run. If you download every song off of Limewire that ever existed, then your system will be full of every keylogger in existence.

Linux experiences less "assumed" vulnerabilities because its user-base is exclusively tech-savy. Windows on the other hand has a user base that ranged from Grandma to an IT professional.
I think you guys are both right.

1: The "test" was flawed. So, right off the bat we should take everything with several grains of good salt. It was not a 3rd party, it was the developer, publisher, and marketer of the "more secure" OS.

2: Exactly! I've been running Sever 2003 as my primary OS for several months now, most of the time with no anti-virus software installed. I still run my spyware programs and such, because in the internet today it's unavoidable, I but I've yet to pick up a single trojan, keylogger, virus, etc. The security of the OS has everything to do with who is using it. More tech-savy people usually means multiple computers, which usually means a router. A router usually means a hardware firewall, so boom, right there you just cut off most of your issues. I can't count how many people I see with their computers plugged straight into a modem.
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 37
I would expect Linux to be quite a bit more secure than Windoze, simply because a large percentage of Linux users seem to know how to find and fix exploits of this type, and the community is so tight that when one IS found the knowledge gets shared very quickly.
post #37 of 37
Now my turn

Firstly, this is Microsoft. They'll do almost anything to stop a competitor from getting the edge on them. Including spreading propaganda (IP rights, Security etc). This is merely another method of trying to re-assure the public that they've made the right choice. Now, I'm not saying they haven't made the right choice, because Windows is a perfectly good OS. It's all a matter of opinion. With Dell taking on Ubuntu, Microsoft are very much aware that they're starting to fall down a slippery slope. IE: People are pissed off with being told want they want. Choice is best.

Secondly, Open Source _is_ more secure. It's a fact. Period. Everyone has their own programming styles and introducing multiple types of styles and understandings of a language reduces bugs and security flaws. It also needs to be said that all *nix's are more secure than Windows simply because of their design (that's why Vista's design is closer to it's unix counterparts). Although not entirely true, Linux is the OS of the hacker. A hacker does not want to be hacked.

Thirdly, it's been shown that Microsoft have been covering up how many exploits are 'available' for Vista by secretly patching peoples machines through seemingly unrelated system updates.

That's just my take on things.

Oh, and if you want secure, check out OpenBSD. That should be the benchmark for all OS security.
Studio Machine
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 @ 2.6 Ghz I forget. nVidia 8400 2GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x320GB, 1x750GB CD/DVD+-RW Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 & Arch Linux 64bit 19inch Acer X193W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech UltraSlim Pathetic 350w Cube 2 Quid Bargain Bin Thing 
  hide details  
Reply
Studio Machine
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 @ 2.6 Ghz I forget. nVidia 8400 2GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x320GB, 1x750GB CD/DVD+-RW Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 & Arch Linux 64bit 19inch Acer X193W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech UltraSlim Pathetic 350w Cube 2 Quid Bargain Bin Thing 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › Microsoft Claims Vista Is More Secure Than Linux