Dharma Wheel

Namdrol wrote:
If this were true, there would not be so many holes in Windows.

N

Who says there are holes in Windows 7?

There aren't any holes on Windows 7.

Like I said, it has UAC.

The only good thing Apple makes is the Airport Extreme which is surprisingly the best WiFi router on the market.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4577/airp ... er-wifi-/9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

alwayson wrote:

Namdrol wrote:
If this were true, there would not be so many holes in Windows.

N

Who says there are holes in Windows 7?

There aren't any holes on Windows 7.

Like I said, it has UAC.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/20 ... -stack.ars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Namdrol wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/20 ... -stack.ars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These are just typical updates that Microsoft releases. My PC automatically installs them. I don't even have to think about it.

You made it sound like there are some fundamental unfixable holes to Windows.

XP at work. Window 7 at home.

alwayson wrote:

Namdrol wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/20 ... -stack.ars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These are just typical updates that Microsoft releases. My PC automatically installs them. I don't even have to think about it.

You made it sound like there are some fundamental unfixable holes to Windows.

All holes a fixable, the point is, there should not be so many.

Namdrol wrote: All holes a fixable, the point is, there should not be so many.

Lets be clear that Mac has more such holes than Windows.

The only difference is that Microsoft fixes them, and Apple doesn't.

alwayson wrote:

Namdrol wrote: All holes a fixable, the point is, there should not be so many.

Lets be clear that Mac has more such holes than Windows.

Sorry, my boy, that is just not the case. You can't FUD your way out of this.

Namdrol wrote: Sorry, my boy, that is just not the case. You can't FUD your way out of this.

Thats absolutely the case.

Famed Mac security expert Charlie Miller, who won multiple years for the fast Mac hack at Pwn2Own, comments, "Mac OS X is no more secure than any other operating system. It has vulnerabilities, and it will let you download and run malware. The difference is that there simply isn't that much malware written for it. The bad guys have focused all their energies at Windows, which makes up the vast majority of the computers out there. However, as market share for Macs continues to inch up, that equation is going to change and bad guys will begin to focus in on Macs, if that hasn't already started to happen. And as I mentioned above, Macs are no more inherently secure than Windows, so when the bad guys decide to go after them with gusto, it'll get ugly fast."

alwayson wrote: These are just typical updates that Microsoft releases. My PC automatically installs them.

Yes! Your PC automatically gets frozen for more than 24 hours sometimes while updating isn't?

BuddhistPariah wrote:.

woooo, Pariahs are scary!

alwayson wrote:

Namdrol wrote: Sorry, my boy, that is just not the case. You can't FUD your way out of this.

Thats absolutely the case.

Famed Mac security expert Charlie Miller, who won multiple years for the fast Mac hack at Pwn2Own, comments, "Mac OS X is no more secure than any other operating system. It has vulnerabilities, and it will let you download and run malware. The difference is that there simply isn't that much malware written for it. The bad guys have focused all their energies at Windows, which makes up the vast majority of the computers out there. However, as market share for Macs continues to inch up, that equation is going to change and bad guys will begin to focus in on Macs, if that hasn't already started to happen. And as I mentioned above, Macs are no more inherently secure than Windows, so when the bad guys decide to go after them with gusto, it'll get ugly fast."

More FUD. Same stuff we have been hearing for years.

What was eSangha OS? How did they get in?

What is Dharma Wheel on? It looks even more rickety. I'm almost tempted to write a Stylish script for the horrendous gradient at the top. THANK YOU ADMIN! I know you don't care how it looks

alwayson wrote:I still don't understand why we are lumping all "Windows" into the same category.

Windows 7 is as secure as any other OS.

I use the free Microsoft Security Essentials for AV

Linux security has features that make it inherently more secure than any MS Windows platform, and the difficulty of penetrating a Linux system keeps the number of viruses written for Linux few in number. I feel no need to have virus scan software on my Linux system. I accept that one may configure and use Windows such that its security is as good as Linux, but one must work for the same level of security that Linux has naturally with no extra effort.

I will say Mac's security is good.

However, if you know what anti-virus software to use for Windows, you are all set.

LastLegend wrote:I will say Mac's security is good.

However, if you know what anti-virus software to use for Windows, you are all set.

I agree. Macs are superior machines. There is no doubt about it.

But if you are on Windows like me, get Vipre for godsakes. Also, run malwarebytes from time to time to check for any problems Vipre might not pick up.

Vypre is excellent antivirus + antispyware super program. It updates constantly for new threats. It is a world different than most popular anti virus programs, really. Vipre for the win on Windows. It also has a good Firewall available.

Kevin

LastLegend wrote:I will say Mac's security is good.

However, if you know what anti-virus software to use for Windows, you are all set.

There is more to it than that. Another problem is users doing things that make getting viruses more likely. Many viruses come through email attachments so it's important to be careful about what email attachments you open.

Another big thing is the fact that many Windows users using XP are always operating as an administrator. Doing this makes it so that viruses have greater access to your machine and can do more harm. It is safer to operate as a restricted user and only be logged in as an administrator when you need to install/upgrade software. One of the main reasons why most XP machines are set up that way is that some Windows application programs are written in such a way that they won't work properly unless ran in administrator mode. This is really stupid security wise. None of the linux applications are like that, and I doubt that any MAC applications are either.

As I understand UAC, the way it works is that it operates under restricted user mode (where software can't be installed/upgraded), but before software is installed/upgraded, the user is prompted to get approval. This is certainly better than always operating as administrator (where software can be installed/upgraded) all the time. But again, the potential weakness of this is the user. If the user is in the habit of always accepting the install/upgrade, UAC won't help.

alwayson wrote:I still don't understand why we are lumping all "Windows" into the same category.

Windows 7 is as secure as any other OS.

I doubt it but maybe they finally did a good thing this time around. If so it's only taken them, what, 21 years? And anyway, "as good as any other OS" ? That's not very good. So it's a race to the near-bottom?

edearl wrote: Linux security has features that make it inherently more secure than any MS Windows platform,

Unfortunately that's not saying much ....

and the difficulty of penetrating a Linux system keeps the number of viruses written for Linux few in number. I feel no need to have virus scan software on my Linux system.

No virus scan just means you are willing to accept the consequences if and when your machine is penetrated. It's not like Linux is that difficult to penetrate, it's just more difficult that Windows.

Computer security classes regularly demonstrate penetration techniques on Linux machines. I was shocked the first time I was successful with that on my machine.

Kirt

kirtu wrote:No virus scan just means you are willing to accept the consequences if and when your machine is penetrated. It's not like Linux is that difficult to penetrate, it's just more difficult that Windows.

Computer security classes regularly demonstrate penetration techniques on Linux machines. I was shocked the first time I was successful with that on my machine.

Kirt

Sure linux and it's applications have vulnerabilities. You can find lists of bug fixes on the Internet and among them you see fixes for vulnerabilities. Yet very few people use anti-virus software on linux. Even without using it, malware is less of a problem on linux. I've been using linux on my wives machine for 5 years and on my machine for 11 years and never had a problem. I think it's partially because more people are using Windows, which makes it a more attractive target. But that's not the whole story. From the very beginning Unix/linux developers took security more seriously than Windows developers and now Windows developers are playing catchup. Both linux and OS X were derived from Unix and are both following the good example of Unix and making security a high priority.

Kyosan wrote:

kirtu wrote:No virus scan just means you are willing to accept the consequences if and when your machine is penetrated. It's not like Linux is that difficult to penetrate, it's just more difficult that Windows.

Computer security classes regularly demonstrate penetration techniques on Linux machines. I was shocked the first time I was successful with that on my machine.

Kirt

Sure linux and it's applications have vulnerabilities. You can find lists of bug fixes on the Internet and among them you see fixes for vulnerabilities. Yet very few people use anti-virus software on linux. Even without using it, malware is less of a problem on linux. I've been using linux on my wives machine for 5 years and on my machine for 11 years and never had a problem. I think it's partially because more people are using Windows, which makes it a more attractive target. But that's not the whole story. From the very beginning Unix/linux developers took security more seriously than Windows developers and now Windows developers are playing catchup. Both linux and OS X were derived from Unix and are both following the good example of Unix and making security a high priority.

Linux has vulnerabilities, but security updates are frequent and free. Moreover, if one only runs a personal user-id, instead of root (i.e., admin)--normal for Linux users--security breaches are very limited. One can disconnect from the internet to run root, which gives added protection. Any use of root while on the internet should be very limited.