Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Technology/Computers  > Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 1
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than VistaPage 1 of 1    
http://www.crn.com/software/199701019
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-windows-vista-no-more-secure-than-xp-report.html
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/2130244

Ironically W98 is more secure than either. That's progress for ya.
 AppleGeek
Joined: 9/26/2006
Msg: 2
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 5/31/2007 8:00:13 PM
Version 1.0 of anyhting remotly complex is going to have issues. It only gets worse. They've never had a reputatino for making descisions based on worst case senarios. Besides Vista is designed to be secure its designed to be DRM friendly. You want to keep your data safe on Vista find something that lets you save in a DRM protected format.
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 3
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 5/31/2007 9:07:24 PM
It's a bit of a stretch calling it version 1 though, it's just the next version of NT after XP. Any other company would call it NT V3.0.0. This is a common complaint about MS's nomenclature.

(Why am I offered an option to delete my own thread?)
 Wrenchspinner
Joined: 10/19/2004
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/1/2007 8:30:06 AM
Any ideas on how Linux mainstream distros like Debian, Mandriva or even Ubuntu stack up in such a security test comparation?

Kim
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 5
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/1/2007 9:16:01 AM
Reality has an anti-Microsoft bias.
 Wrenchspinner
Joined: 10/19/2004
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/1/2007 9:54:20 AM
"Reality has an anti-Microsoft bias."

I know it sounds like a baited question I asked previously, but the curiosity is at least genuine. In all honesty, if Microsoft could even come close to Linux in a head to head system security test I might at least temper my own thoughts about the differences a bit between the two.

I suppose to be totally fair though, such a test would of necessity require the Linux system to have the user logged in as root/administrator and expose the same soft underbelly of the OS that Windows has all its users run as by default

Kim
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 7
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/1/2007 11:13:10 AM
To make unix as insecure as windoes you'd have to rewrite the kernel and reconfigure the entire system and introduce more bugs. UNix has been evolcing for about forty years and has a better handle on security issues. A unix of 10 or 15 years ago would be a disaster in todays internet (but would still be more secure than windows).
 Wrenchspinner
Joined: 10/19/2004
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/1/2007 6:20:15 PM
I understand your points Dave and certainly the human error factor cannot be left out of the equation. But ..... I hardly think a corporate environment where a Windows system were left open to the elements as you described above would last for any length of time in an unmolested state comparatively.

I doubt either that the tesing procedures used to assert the benchmark results in the initially mentioned comparison would even factor in such a set of circumstances. With that in mind, I still wonder how the two systems (Windows and Linux) would compare in a heads up test.

To me two main things make up the bulk of my thoughts about basic system security when comparing Windows to Linux :

1. Windows users typically run as Administrator when on their computers because that's the default set up by Windows while Linux users are typically logged in as simple system users and only engage root priviledges when necessary to make administrative changes to their system and then are by default kicked back to a simple user by system default once they're finished.

2. 99.99% of the malware out there is specifically targeted at Windows OSes.

Kim
 shryko
Joined: 10/21/2006
Msg: 9
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/1/2007 9:32:19 PM
I'd like to point out that Vista isn't NT 3.0.0... after all, there was Win NT 4.0, Win 2000, then XP for the development of the NT kernel. Win NT 4.0 was a business only release of windows, and is regarded as the most stable windows ever... then again, it is simpler than the later versions.

Vista outdoes XP for security, at worst matching it... but the shear size of Vista makes it slightly slower...

this is why I've found my (K)Ubuntu systems running programs faster than their windows counterpart versions (same hardware)... the Linux systems are simpler, being less code...

as well, the *nix philosophy is to have it closed by default, unless you open it (ie. network ports, etc)

for the comments abotu running as the administrator for if you want to compare windows to unix/linux/solaris... well, vista's UAC is basically the same concept as the *nix "sudo" idea.

and I too find that we no longer need to worry about the system's security in itself... now the biggest danger to the system is the users...

oh, and it may soon be that the majority of malware is targeted at x86/x64 processors... those who know assembler can write malware to work on the level below the operating system, and thus target all operating systems...
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 10
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/2/2007 9:02:47 AM
I understand there was an NT 4; the complaint against Microsoft is they gave new major version numbers to OS's for what everybody else would have been minor version numbers.

Guy 28 you make a couple of interesting points but your terminology is so filled with the wrong worde it's sometimes hard to figure out what you're saying. For example it's "API" not "ABI"; only windoes has DLL's, not sure what a "hypervisor" is, there are no "windows cpus" etc.


At some point, you need to interface with the OS if you want to have work done


Not really. You can use BIOS calls. How do you think the OS gets any work done? The ones on your intel/amd computer today are the same as the first pc in 85. Back then we did everything in assembler. Before that we had to write our own bios chips but no two were the same even for similar cpus.

Your overall point is well taken and well understood - a homogeneous computnig environment has intrinsic risks.
 shryko
Joined: 10/21/2006
Msg: 11
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/2/2007 9:38:05 PM
and regarding the dlls, you would use a fat binary... and your program can scan the hardware directly... this results, once the program gets cleared by the OS, by being downloaded by the foolish user (and authorized), it could have free reign of the hardware... all it needs is to have its own code included to directly access the hardware.

as well, the new virtualization friendly CPUs have hypervisor support in x86/x64... but it's only a very recent addition to the hardware...

it is a lot more complicated, but it is totally doable... and with that, it could target multiple OSes, and multiple variants... just because it is self-contained, and as such, the only thing it really needs from the operating system is the user to activate it (like almost all of the run-of-the-mill malware)
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 12
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/4/2007 7:53:43 AM
The old ways are new again. And have funny names. Cool.
 starrow
Joined: 4/26/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/6/2007 7:42:23 PM
However safe Win98 is , No one will use it with a moderner OS like Win2000, XP , won't they? It's so unstable.
As to safety, Linux is a better choice I think. In Windows family, the new Vista should prove MS's assertion with time. A new product won't surprise me with its bugs.
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 14
Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista
Posted: 6/6/2007 11:52:43 PM

However safe Win98 is , No one will use it with a moderner OS like Win2000, XP , won't they? It's so unstable.


It can be. Nut not always. I've proved to myself that what they say ("It's the drivers, not Windows itself that cause problems") is true. I"ve had some installations of W98 that had to rebooted 7 times a day. Over the years it seems to have gotten better as new and better drivers come out. I have one 98 machine and several xo machines and I see no difference. By that I mean the 98 mcahine is on all the time and hasn't required a reboot in weeks, which is about the same as I see with xp.

I've never seen any windows box that can go hundreds of days or more like unix does though.
Show ALL Forums  > Technology/Computers  > Ouch. XP suggested more secure than Vista