Symantec: Windows Is Most Secure Os

Windows would probably only be the most secure if it has a very effective security suite running. Otherwise it's an open target for anyone, take a look at linux or mac they hardly need this protection because very few viruses actually work on those OSes. But microsoft could've made their coding better and they need these frequent patches to patch up their mistakes. -HellFire

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I wont consider something that gives patches and crashes the whole system it patches.
Darn windows, and I cant get the needed patches I want without first applying the "required" patches that crashes windoze..

The thing that must be tackled here is integrity and then security. On linux boxes patches came in hundreds per day since linux is made up of thousands of modular pieces.

On windoze, patches came regularly, and it silently patch your system and just sent you a notice that you need to reboot. And when I turn off that darn automatic update, an annoying icon appears that my windoze is unsafe.

------
On side note that Linux was not having a good share of exploits and attacks, It does knowing that 80% of *Nixes are running as servers with thousands of data. A good hacker wont aim for the windoze on desktops unless if they want a hord of zombies. A tasty buffet was *Nixes with millions of worth of data.

Patches only came faster in *Nixes.

Another side note. If windoze problems of security error came from third party programs, you have not landed your hand on *Nixes where almost everything came from third party supplier. Bloody hell, I can't believe that when i updated BCC compiler on my *Nix, I need to figure out what I need out of 37 different variations of the said library from 25 third party websites and developers.

-------
Windoze = install once, worry many
*Nix = install many, worry once

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Well you have to keep in mind several things with this article....

First of all, as has already been mentioned, they take the total number of issues, not the number of severe ones.

In addition, you have to keep in mind that Symantec sells software for Windows, so they probably want to let people know that they should be using windows.

I also have to say, with people who say that linux is so secure....Linux isn't used by anywhere near the number of people that windows is used by, so it isn't necessarily targeted as much by people to find holes in it. Why would a hacker, or somebody who has the intent of doing something malicious, want to try and find security issues with an OS that isn't used by as many people around the world?

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

well, having bazillion dollars worth of information does count.. guess i am correct.

why would need to have root or control on windows desktops when knowing that they can contain less information. the much logical things i can see on exploiting windoze desktops are the following

1. to steal bank data from users when they type in there accounts
2. create zombies for the hackers other purposes. [free spamming email server anyone? DDOS anybody?]

----------

Now on *Nixes, this is harder not that there are less exploits.. in fact a *Nix install out of the box will have lots of exploits open and lots of vulnerability. however, we do configure aren't we? I have conducted a test between two system. windoze and Fedora, i turn on windows proection and firewall from fresh install and I define an IPtables in Fedora.

Fedora turns out to be invisible to nmap and other port scanning software. windoze was clearly visible and ports are replying to nmap. I have succesfully made a DDOS using 20 computers on windoze and it crashed, fedora remains untouched..

No test on mac, dont have money to buy one.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I rarely need to constantly reinstall Linux, except for the kernel which I constantly upgrade since I get to use the new optimizations it comes out with each release.

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

It's quite sad that in this day and age, we still have to read between the lines, and people should be more accurate with their content, just recently a popular beverage that has been around for years, gave the impression their drink had 4 times the amount of Vitamin C than Oranges, but in their wording, they said Blackcurrants used in the drink have 4 times the amount of Vitamin C than Oranges, but university students discovered they only had 1.5 times the amount of Vitamin C than Oranges, but it's possible the Blackcurrants they used had 4 times the amount. It turns out that this drink has more sugar than Coca Cola (Coke).

Fewest number of patches means, they need to get off their ass more and fix it. The least things they fix, the least number of patches you'll see.

Shortest patch development time means they probably left a semi-colon off a product and fixed it quicker than some with more serious problems. There's been some things Microsoft has chosen to ignore, like not fixing a known problem, because they felt it wasn't worth it, so I'm guessing they also hold the title for longest awaiting patch development too.

As far as I can tell, this is just twisting the information to their advantage, Microsoft has done this quite a few times with twisting the information around to make them be on top, but what does count is comparing Operating System components themselves and not programs, also severe problems and not how long it took them to develop a patch, but how long it took them to make sure all their Operating Systems in use became patched. Another thing, everything would be judged on a default installation, how about a custom installation with minimal options or can't they do that because Windows no longer allows customisation, and you have to put up with what gets installed?

Security seems to be a big issue, and it would be with Symantec, but what about Stability. I know a lot of the problems can be a result caused by programmers, but there really needs to be standards implied, otherwise programming is just one big fire with logs being thrown in just to keep it running.

Either way, we'll never get to the truth, just people saying Windows is secure, Linux is secure, OS X is secure. May as well say everything is secure as long as you take the precautions to make sure no one can break into your home/office and steal your computer.

Cheers,

MC

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

That's true, fewer patches may actually mean less holes are being patched. Symantec should've said they found the least holes in Windows than any other operating system

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Only because they make AntiVirus for Windows doesn't mean that Windows is the safest. My friend uses Linux, a file virus downloaded in a EXE format and didn't even attempt to execute! Windows has the easiest to break in records. Click your fingers, enter blah blah in the DOS prompt and its infected.

Viruses don't go to people with mininum web education don't know about the impact that viruses does, that is why they use AntiVirus, good thinking!
Viruses go to the without AntiVirus, but don't you forget, any AntiVirus can't block all of them!

xxxx-jozh-xxxx

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

lol this is really funny - symantec need to find some new way to make users buy their software instead of publishing such reports to indirectly boost their sales!

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I agree. They are making products to a system which has lot of security flaws than any other operating system. That company itself is producing many viruses and posting definitions for it to disinfect. In such scenario if they publish such reports then definitely it is suspicious. By the way, very old topic is bumped.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)