FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Windows most secure OS?





Bones
According to Symantec this is the case. Thought some of you might find this an interesting read:

http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201


Though I am sure that Mac users won't like it, but you can't argue with the numbers can you? Or can you?
dontbeblocked
I'm a Windows user all the way but I still think that mac's are much much more secure because there are so much fewer viruses out there designed for macs. Linux is also the same way since it is not very popular except for very advanced programers/hackers who prefer to make viruses and hacks for Windows.

Personally I think the most suseptable program is actually Symantec Antivus because it really doesn't find viruses very well and since it is used to widely and known for being the most popular more people have found ways around it's virus finding abilities. I had Symantec for awhile but I got tired of it and switched back to AVG which immediately detected 2 viruses on my computer that a scan from Symantec hadn't.
{name here}
Windows may patch vulnerabilities quicker, but that makes up with the fact that there are more critical vulnerabilities, plus around 200 active virii at any given period and countless amounts of adware. I can't say that Windows is the most secure OS out there.
Xeniczone
Yeah, just this month my I was required (not really just asked me to do it) to upgrade to 10.4.9 and install like 2 security fixes. along with upgrade some other stuff like iTunes.

The Mac commercial doesn't diss Microsoft on be unsecure it disses it on the fact there approch to it is very annoying, and I have Vista and UAC is indeed VERY VERY ANNOYING.
Bones
I hear a lot of people say that UAC is annoying. If it's that annoying, then turn it off and stop complaining. It takes 2 seconds to do. Hey I agree, it is annoying..that's why I shut it off..although you can't install Adobe reader with UAC off (way to go Adobe!!)

I think the biggest thing that put Mac in third place was that in general it takes them 3 times as long to deal with a security issue than MS. (average turnaround time of 39 days as opposed to 13)

I'm kind of surprised though, I really thought that Symantec would bash MS as usual, and would want people to think that Windows is less secure so that they continue to buy the crap that Symantec makes.
bongoman
This is a very Biased report, Symantec is very marginal outside of Windows, so they have allot at stake in all of this, so of course they're not going to recommend people to use other operating systems. The report also makes a number of omissions in terms of linux, it only covers one Distribution (Red Hat) If I didn't know any better I would have thought this report was written eight years ago when Red Hat was the dominant player in the linux market, but their market share has actually been dwindling in the last few years, what about SuSE? what about Ubuntu? what about Debian? Gentoo? Mandriva? Linspire? Knoppix? or FreeBSD? OpenBSD? All of those other distributions have widely ranging standards when it comes to security flaw reporting and patching. This is hardly a thoroughly researched never mind independently produced report.
Bones
bongoman wrote:
This is a very Biased report, Symantec is very marginal outside of Windows, so they have allot at stake in all of this, so of course they're not going to recommend people to use other operating systems.


Actually, traditionally, Symantec has slammed Microsoft for being insecure. Why would they want people to think it is more secure than other OS's? They don't need MS to have market share, they already have it. With people thinking that Windows is less secure, they will be more likely to buy security products such as Norton Internet Security etc.

In fact, here is another study that has the exact same opinion (though it does come from Microsoft so is bound to be biased)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=135

Unortunately, these two studies are based on facts, while your opinion is based on...well...opinion

Also they didn't rate all linux distros, because they key phrase was 'widely used' What exactly constitutes widely used? Who knows, but you obviously can't compare the number of Suse users to the number of Windows users (though as far as linux distros go, I think Suse is my fav)
bongoman
I am sorry but you didn't exactly refute my point, I asked for an independently produced report, and you brought me the exact opposite that isn't exactly a counter argument. My point was their so called report was based on selective facts, Symantec is not an independent source on which operating system is secure, neither is Computer Associates, nor Macaffee. While they are able to speak from some level of authority and I am sure they have very capable and qualified people who work for them their actual credentials on the area are very difficult to verify. Reading through their so called report most of what they cite comes from themselves. Their last report is not the best counter argument because Windows XP at this point is supposed to be a "Developed" operating system so its expected to be secure and have all the bugs ironed out. The difference with this "Report" is that its a new operating system with new security concepts being introduced, Symantec has had to write all new versions of their software to make it compatible with Vista so it has a long term interest in that regard. Just wait for their next report and I am almost 99.9% certain its going to start saying a different story about Vista's security.
Whong
I'm a Windows user too, but from what I've seen my windows do I'd be willing to guess that Macs are way more secure than Windows. Some how I also like Mac better, but I've not been doing stuff with Mac much! Wink
bukaida
dontbeblocked wrote:
I'm a Windows user all the way but I still think that mac's are much much more secure because there are so much fewer viruses out there designed for macs..


That's because most users are on windows platform and so maximum damage can be done by making windows virus. The goal of the virus maker will be achieved. Very Happy

Quote:
Personally I think the most suseptable program is actually Symantec Antivus because it really doesn't find viruses very well and since it is used to widely and known for being the most popular more people have found ways around it's virus finding abilities.


not only that, It is the most resource hogging and will definitely slow down your computer. Worst, it is much difficult to un install than others.The latest 2007 version also suffers from that.so i have shifted to NOD32 and am very happy with it's performence.
knightandre
It is true that Apple has had a rather long turnaround time for dealing with security issues, but you have to see this in perspective. Most of what you hear about with vulnerabilities in OS X is the result of a study, not an actual "wild" threat. In fact, I don't recall any OS X outbreaks that could compare to Windows ones.
OS X is more secure. I've been using my Mac for 4 years without anti-virus, anti-spyware, or a serious firewall (admittedly, my router has a firewall built-in). I have had zero issues, and I can pull up the process manager and recognize every task. A Windows machine put up to this ordeal would be bogged down with spyware, viruses, and AOL. I've seen it before.
Yes, you could argue that most anyone with can run antivirus, put up a firewall, and run anti-spyware. That's where you'd be wrong. There's a significant amount of people who think their computer should "just work". As in, they can press the power button, launch a text editor, open a web-browser, play a game - whatever. This is what computers should do, and it's what a Mac is designed to do. You don't work for the computer, the computer works for you. You can dedicate yourself to maintaining your computer, but, in the end, you'd just be making up for larger problems that should have been addressed in a different way.

Linux may be more secure than OS X, but that's just Linux.
Jaan
Ain't linux?
froginabox
Sometimes security can get skewed... I have a few Windows boxes at home that have never seen a network outside of themselves (no internet at all). Pretty darn secure!

I do agree that Symantec may not be the most unbiased company to make the report, seeing as most of their share is Windows.
Arno v. Lumig
bukaida wrote:
dontbeblocked wrote:
I'm a Windows user all the way but I still think that mac's are much much more secure because there are so much fewer viruses out there designed for macs..


That's because most users are on windows platform and so maximum damage can be done by making windows virus. The goal of the virus maker will be achieved. Very Happy

[...]


As I said before in another topic:

Saying that Linux is safer because it's not used by many people is rubbish. If I would be a black hat hacker, and I would only care about causing mayhem, I wouldn't be bothered to hack the windows PC of aunt nellie... Instead I would try to hack servers, so even more people get problems. Lots of servers use Linux, so hacking Linux would really interest me more then hacking windows...
Bones
I also disagree that Mac is more secure. Just because no one breaks into my unlocked car does not make it secure.

Also if you want an 'unbiased' report, how about a report written in 2004?
http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=1798

Actually type "Mac security myth" (sans quotes) into google and have a look at any of the bazillion web pages that come up.

In reality, there is no such thing as a 'secure' OS if secure means that it cannot be hacked, cracked or exploited.
knightandre
That article is three years old, from a questionable source, but I see your point. OS X is not totally secure. However, as of now, there are less viruses, spyware, and the sort on OS X. In my opinion, this article from Business week offers a more balanced perspective:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060504_303032.htm
corey
Wow. This topic is quite hot. Has anyone considered the biggest security risk to the computer? Its located between the keyboard and the chair...
socialoutcast
here's what i think of micr$oft's security -- full of holes. whenever they find some vulnerablity in windows they patch it and then they find another one and they patch it and so on an so on....

it's like going out to the playground, falling off the swing set because you can't stay on in the first place, scraping your knees, putting a band aid over the wound, and then going back out the the swing set to fall off again.
But yet what micro$oft doesn't want you to know is that there's a playground bully waiting to push you off the swing, so they just tape tin foil on windows as armor.
fadirocks
socialoutcast wrote:
here's what i think of micr$oft's security -- full of holes. whenever they find some vulnerablity in windows they patch it and then they find another one and they patch it and so on an so on....

it's like going out to the playground, falling off the swing set because you can't stay on in the first place, scraping your knees, putting a band aid over the wound, and then going back out the the swing set to fall off again.
But yet what micro$oft doesn't want you to know is that there's a playground bully waiting to push you off the swing, so they just tape tin foil on windows as armor.


Laughing nice one

sorry to say folks I wouldn't trust Symantec on their reports especially I don't even trust their products & stopped using their products for many years thanks for them screwing me over for many times. so now I supposed to trust their report huh Laughing I would trust dancing monkey on security report over Symantec
cheeta
Windows is secure only when u know who to make is secure... !! I have had any re-installation with my system in Past 2 years after i installed Kaspersky solutions... !! Therefore is, windows been good for me..
Bones
corey wrote:
Wow. This topic is quite hot. Has anyone considered the biggest security risk to the computer? Its located between the keyboard and the chair...


True enough.

I guess I just dont agree with people who say Windows has such poor security since I have used every version of windows (almost) and have never once had any security problems. I would say that most security issues are caused by an end user.
Stubru Freak
Bones wrote:
corey wrote:
Wow. This topic is quite hot. Has anyone considered the biggest security risk to the computer? Its located between the keyboard and the chair...


True enough.

I guess I just dont agree with people who say Windows has such poor security since I have used every version of windows (almost) and have never once had any security problems. I would say that most security issues are caused by an end user.


Yes, but the fact is that an operating system can make it hard or easy for an end user to install something bad. Let's compare the two operating systems I use, Windows and Ubuntu Linux.

First, Ubuntu (and Linux in general) has file permissions, so if you download an executable from the internet, hiding as an image, you won't have the permission to execute it. You will get a nice warning about it being an executable instead of an image and you can safely delete it. If you think THIS is too hard for the average user, think about what Windows needs you to do. You need to actually recognise the file extension, or right click and press Properties. How do you expect the end user to be safe this way?

Additionally, in Linux you will almost never have to download and run an executable from the internet. Almost all software is in the repositories. In Windows users are trained to blindly run any software from the internet.

Note that I never had security problems myself, but it's way too difficult for the average user.
bongoman
The other problem with reports like these which you guys have made is that they usually don't take into account the real life habits of a majority of end users. It's one thing to to report the fastest turnaround for patches to security vulnerabilities its another thing to actually install them, which is nearly impossible to measure without some intensive survey, some of these patches can be really large downloads too and thats got to be a pain in the neck for people who live in places without broadband access which is still quite large.

Thats one of the reasons why I can't understand why they sometimes make just one big patch instead of an option between one big patch and chunks of one big patch in smaller doses. I mean have you ever tried downloading a copy of XP service pack 2 it takes days! (luckily it also comes free on a cd, or at least it did last I checked). Of course having broadband it doesn't really affect me but its still worth noting.
infobankr
I trust Soekris Engineering, they say:

"
* FreeBSD The most powerful x86 open source Unix
* OpenBSD The most secure open source Unix available
* NetBSD The most portable open source Unix available
* Linux The most popular open source Unix

"

http://www.soekris.com/products.htm
carlospro7
I dislike macs all the way, so the numbers don't bother me. Also I'm not so big on Windows, but if the article is true, I'm glad their doing better.
LostOverThere
Topic Title wrote:
Windows is the Most Secure OS


Bull Crap


Nuff Said.
qscomputing
The article (or should I say TFA, like on /.) compares Windows to RedHat Linux. So for Linux we're looking at the patches that are released by one particular vendor, not the patches that are created. Bugs get fixed in CVS/SVN very quickly, they just take a little longer to pass through to the vendors. Like so many things, the Windows and Linux ways of doing things are just so radically different it's hard to really compare them properly.
dedicatedtolkien
The main thing with this report is that Microsoft had the fastest turnaround times. This is natural, seeing as the company is much larger, and has a very large staff to work on fixing bugs, which is necessary, seeing as they have a large number of them. Mac and Linux, even though they have a large number of "bugs", don't have nearly even the possibility of infection that Microsoft systems have. This is because the basis of the operating system of Linux started out much more stable in the first place, with a secure multi-user interface, whereas Windows started with a single user OS, and then started to try to build security into it from there.
qscomputing
Come on, we all know that Microsoft doesn't have the fastest turnaround times to fix bugs. The Linux result is a bit strange because it is only looking at packages from an individual distributor. If there was a serious bug, it would get fixed within a few days or weeks - but it may take months to reach the distros. I guess some people would wait for the official distros, but most would take the releases from the individual projects if there were serious fixes.
redice
Windows is less secure for common user. It need some config, for example, one should use a normal user to do his common work and change to super user just when he need the super privileges. But before windows vista, the default installed user are always super user. This is the big holl for virus.
greatfire
i dont care about security for my comp. generally speaking as security goes up, so does the level of annoyance. In my opinion linux is the safest without being annoying
billgertz
greatfire wrote:
i dont care about security for my comp. generally speaking as security goes up, so does the level of annoyance. In my opinion linux is the safest without being annoying


I guess Microsoft also offers security programs like ISA Server but you have to buy it. So I have to agree with you greatfire. Linux OS still holds the safest OS in the OS world not to mention its free.
starfish2007
look im running vistamyself and if anything i think they went way over bord insecurty this thing has more security then all previes oprating systems put together unforchenaly they gaveme somanyhead akes and stoped evenfrom regrestering my aunty virus program so iend up tureningmostof the securityoff but evenso i sayits still gotmore then xp pro did
Arno v. Lumig
starfish2007 wrote:
look im running vistamyself and if anything i think they went way over bord insecurty this thing has more security then all previes oprating systems put together unforchenaly they gaveme somanyhead akes and stoped evenfrom regrestering my aunty virus program so iend up tureningmostof the securityoff but evenso i sayits still gotmore then xp pro did


Translation:
I am running Vista myself and I think a major improvement in Vista is the security. This version of Windows has more security then all previous versions had together. Unfortunately Vista was a pain in the neck, it even stopped me from registering my anti virus program, so I ended up putting all security things off, but even then it has more security then XP Pro had.

Rant:
Arguments, please?
xbcd
where i read what i am about to say i can not recall. But it was totally unbiased because it was some university study. They took all holes in OSX, Linux, Windows systems and ranked them based on how much damage they could possibly cause. The thing that was concluded was Linux, Mac, Windows in that order for the possible damage causable by attacks. However this study did say Microsoft had the fastest responses overall but Linux was trailing with the Mac last. Now i personally want a Mac very bad but can not afford one so i went to the second best option in my opinion. I am a Linux user as of 2 months ago. Yeah you can all bicker but most Linux distributions turn fixes in about 48 hours or less and if thats not enough since most of the exploits for Linux are less damage prone that is 2 days i am willing to wait. Just my 2˘
Xeniczone
Can you not afford a mac or can you not afford the best mac.

I see G4s go on ebay all the time for around 300-400 dollars. Where a 800mhz g4 is comparable to a 1.7ghz pentium 4.

A new macintosh is only 600 dollars for the mac mini that has 2 cores.

If your looking for anything lower then that 600 dollar mac mini then you are looking for a low end computer that Apple doesn't make, and if your looking for a low end computer you might as well get a used one because you will probably get the same proformance.

For example you can find a brand new computer from dell for 300 dollars that has a Celeron in it. Well thats great and all that it has a 3ghz processor but that processor has been nutered and is no better then a 1ghz pentium 3.

Same for a car. You can get a brand new truck for around 20,000 with a 200hp v6. Well whats the point in that new truck when your old truck has a 300hp v8 in it.
snicker
I read a little bit if TFA (as someone sayd Wink ).

the first thing that it is unclear to me is the way data was compared. As far as I know, windows does not come with much useful bundled software, so the vulnerabilities found and patched by Microsoft should be, generally speaking, related to the pure OS core.

It is different for Red Hat: as far as I can read, they consider both Red Hat Enterprise and Fedora. But they are bundled with tons of software, that of course is subject to vulnerabilities, that they notify on their bug repositories. So the actual bug turn around is bound to the efficiency of the developer teams that manage the software.

I don't know about Mac OSX. Very Happy

If someone has a better understanding of this security report, I will be more than glad to receive an explanation..

My 2 cents.
masterarpit
hi guys
windows XP is not better as compared to Linux. as linux provides u open source quality and XP can easily be hacked. frequency of generation of Virus against XP is very much as compared to linux/mac.
bongoman
snicker wrote:
It is different for Red Hat: as far as I can read, they consider both Red Hat Enterprise and Fedora. But they are bundled with tons of software, that of course is subject to vulnerabilities, that they notify on their bug repositories. So the actual bug turn around is bound to the efficiency of the developer teams that manage the software.


I think thats a good point, Linux is not made the same way Windows and OSX are, every part of it is built by thousands of different teams of various sizes of different people who are each managed differently.
gelid
It is very much so a two sided argument, on the one hand there is a much higher number of people using windows and therefore there is a bigger target for hackers. Also due to more people using windows more people may come around random security holes.

You could look at the fact that linux may not be as secure but there isnt as many hacks written for it. Or you could look at it from the point that by being an open source OS it is surposted by its users (aka High level programmers and hackers) who are more then likely from there knowledge of windows going to be able to produce a more stable OS.
Tyler`
knightandre wrote:
It is true that Apple has had a rather long turnaround time for dealing with security issues, but you have to see this in perspective. Most of what you hear about with vulnerabilities in OS X is the result of a study, not an actual "wild" threat. In fact, I don't recall any OS X outbreaks that could compare to Windows ones.
OS X is more secure. I've been using my Mac for 4 years without anti-virus, anti-spyware, or a serious firewall (admittedly, my router has a firewall built-in). I have had zero issues, and I can pull up the process manager and recognize every task. A Windows machine put up to this ordeal would be bogged down with spyware, viruses, and AOL. I've seen it before.
Yes, you could argue that most anyone with can run antivirus, put up a firewall, and run anti-spyware. That's where you'd be wrong. There's a significant amount of people who think their computer should "just work". As in, they can press the power button, launch a text editor, open a web-browser, play a game - whatever. This is what computers should do, and it's what a Mac is designed to do. You don't work for the computer, the computer works for you. You can dedicate yourself to maintaining your computer, but, in the end, you'd just be making up for larger problems that should have been addressed in a different way.

Linux may be more secure than OS X, but that's just Linux.


I agree on Linux
JayBee
I thing the same as gelid

I thing there is mixture of therms
- probability of success attack
- number of security holes

When I create my own operating system, many hackers will not be able to attack me because of they will not know how my system works (eg. implementing web server in microcontroller) but there should be many security holes. Can I say that I have the most secure OS when nobody successfully attack me?
and.hunt
The best protection against viruses etc. is to use your brain, it tends that the people who use Linux are more cllever, whereas a lot of windows users are quite frankly not so clever (Setting up Linux usually requires a brain, preinstalled systems are not so common, any idiot can however get themselves a computer with windows, link that with the very unsafe start configuration of Windows...). In other words, Linux might not necessarily have less holes than Windows, but the chance of getting an attack is a lot smaller.
qebab
I *think* one of the main vulnerabilities of Windows was always the registry. All the registry keys for all the applications and so on, are kept in one central spot. While this might seem like a good idea as it makes managing them easier in theory, there is the fact that corrupting it will make your computer virtually useless until you do a reinstall of Windows. It's also a bitch to find things in the registry, I find. Has this changed with Vista?

I personally like the idea behind root and chmod in *nix systems, and I think that this protects users from a lot of things that would be easy to make mistakes with in Windows. This means that I think *nix has safer file/user systems.

It might be that Windows has fewer security bugs and that these get fixed faster, but that has never protected anyone from stupidity and carelessness, while I consider *nix to do that, to some degree. To modify files your user do not own, applications will first need access to execute, then they will need the rights to change the files, which in most cases means that the root user needs to run it, and you simply don't do this. This is different to where on Windows you might download some shady program (See what I said above about stupidity), install and run it, and suddenly find yourself with a corrupted registry, because the program will not be able to change anything under *nix. This is also goes for things like viruses, of course. They could potentially destroy non-vital parts of your system (As in delete some of your documents, and so on), but they can't disable it completely.

At least this is the impression I've gotten from using linux and windows. What I'm basically saying is that Unix-derived systems are less vulnerable to serious damage than windows-based ones, which may or may not be the same as being less prone to get intrusions. But if an intrusion can't damage your system, you don't need to be as active in trying to lock it out as you would need if it could disable the whole thing.
{name here}
greatfire wrote:
i dont care about security for my comp. generally speaking as security goes up, so does the level of annoyance. In my opinion linux is the safest without being annoying

Unless you have to worry about some hacker pillaging your computer, you don't need antivirus software, or that crap on Windows Vista. All you need is some common sense, and something like NoScript which will disable all the junk that could give you spyware in a webpage.
mehulved
billgertz wrote:
Linux OS still holds the safest OS in the OS world not to mention its free.
Is it the safest? I am a linux user too but I don't believe it's the most secure OS out there.
It has really good security offerings. But, there are other OS's that offer much better security even to the point of being security paranoid. The main lookout for those distribution is security whereas linux tries to maintain better usability-security balance.
And the security it provides is sufficient for most of us. Atleast it is for me. I don't run some top secret underground organisation Razz
ammonkc
I switch from XP to OSX about 3-4 years ago. Since then I have never had a single virus, spyware, malware, popup, or anything of the sort without having any kind of antivirus software or popup-blocker installed. I would disagree with the numbers. I'm a network administrator for about 150 workstations and about a dozen webservers at my company. The only server that has been hacked over here is the one windows IIS server. all the other servers are running linux and have never had a problem. Not to mention that in my experience, a windows machine, once infected, is virtually impossible to completely clean. Once windows security has been compromised, its better to just back up your data and format and reinstall the windows.

just my 2 cents
why6487
If you stay on Windows, get NOD32 or F-Secure.
THE11thROCK™
No way. Most secure: Linux first, Mac second, Other OSes and Windows the farthest. Questions? Stick with windows and buy every security suite you might know. After that, you ain't secured yet. Not happy? Switch to Ubuntu and forget about virii and security paranoia.
internetjobs
i think that most secure os is windows 2008 server... beta released.. original comming soon..
LostOverThere
internetjobs wrote:
i think that most secure os is windows 2008 server... beta released.. original comming soon..


Oh that makes perfect sense, an OS that is still in Beta and hasn't been released is the most secure? Oh wait, it would be because no one has it yet. Rest assure within 5 minutes of its release someone will port a virus to it. Smile
qscomputing
Quick comparison, based on personal experience:

Windows requires (at minimum) an anti-virus program, anti-[ad|spy|mal]ware program and firewall on top of what is built in. Yes, Windows has a firewall built-in, but it is widely acknowledged as being so bad as to be not even worth bothering with.

Linux requires nothing; just a sane configuration of the firewall which is built in to the TCP/IP stack. No anti-virus or anti-malware program is required because of the way Linux software is distributed; it makes it difficult for viruses and other malware to get in in the first place.

Conclusion: Linux is more secure than Windows.
{name here}
Quote:

Windows requires (at minimum) an anti-virus program, anti-[ad|spy|mal]ware program and firewall on top of what is built in. Yes, Windows has a firewall built-in, but it is widely acknowledged as being so bad as to be not even worth bothering with.

You don't if you know what you are doing. All you need is a Limited User Account with DEP turned on, a password protected Administrator account which you do not use unless you want to install something, a router, and a Mozilla browser with NoScript turned on. Then, with a little common sense, you will be just as protected as if you had some bloated anti-malware and anti-virus program.
Arno v. Lumig
THE11thROCK™ wrote:
No way. Most secure: Linux first, Mac second, Other OSes and Windows the farthest. Questions?


Yes. One question. How can you possible say that *BSD and Solaris is less safe then a Mac or Linux??
LostOverThere
Yes, my Windows Firewall is turned off mainly for the fact that when switched on, it takes 50kb/s off my internet.
nhuabo
When one os is so popular ,more cracker are working on it ,so more viruses are made on it.
I think mac is not safer than windows,it is not discovered.No perfect software can be created,and no perfect os can be made.
From this article we can see that windows is more safer more reliable than before.We can use it not scaring the virus and attacks.
LostOverThere
Highly doubt that's true.

Mac has 6% of the desktop market worldwide, and wouldn't you think if your theory was right there would be 6% of the amount of Windows virus' on Mac? Well, Mac has a minuscule amount.
why6487
Windows isn't secure!
(jumps to the Linux side and FreeBSD)
Linux and FreeBSD are more secure.
benjmd
Most of the replies to this thread have avoided addressing the central issues:

1) Security and safety are not used synonymously in this conversation. "Security," as used by the original poster and as used in the article posted, refers specifically to total identified points of entry for a virus into the operating system over a specific time period. "Safety," here refers to an individual's potential to suffer harm while using a particular operating system.

2) In terms of security, the data released in the article suggest that all operating systems have flaws and none demonstrated a number of flaws that overwhelmingly exceeded the others. Considering the nature of "security," a single point of entry for a code capable of taking over a user's computer would constitute a vital flaw of absolute proportion.

3) "Safety" seems to me to be determined by several factors: (a) security of the system; (b) propensity to suffer attack; (c) ability to respond to attack/fix vulnerability; (d) user ability or inability to appropriately affect the aforementioned elements of safety. Clearly Windows suffers on letter "b" owing to its widespread usage which encourages the development of lots of viruses and hacks. Other operating systems do not have the market share to generate this sort of fervor. Windows also suffers on letter "d" because it is popular on low end, easy-to-use computer systems that end up in the hands of inexperienced users and naive perusers of the internet.

Most people that assail the security of Windows neglect to acknowledge that the true deficit is in safety owing to its popularity and basic ease. The fact is, all systems can be hacked unless they are completely isolated from incoming data.
Med365
dontbeblocked wrote:
I'm a Windows user all the way but I still think that mac's are much much more secure because there are so much fewer viruses out there designed for macs. Linux is also the same way since it is not very popular except for very advanced programers/hackers who prefer to make viruses and hacks for Windows.


Don't feed the troll.... Rolling Eyes
I am a Linux user, I have good knowledge in informatics, I make programs sometimes but I don't hack or make viruses for Windows, at the contrary : I fight malwares Exclamation And there are other people like me, for example Malekal_Morte, another French helper and it is not the only one !

I can't let you saying things like those, it is people like you that spend bad rumors about Linux and its users Mad
DeiviD
well, having the biggest amount of fixes can be something good or bad, depending on the way you look at it.

most of the windows security holes are created by the microsoft (intentionally or not) and do not exist on other OSs - thus requiring no fix.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
Highly doubt that's true.

Mac has 6% of the desktop market worldwide, and wouldn't you think if your theory was right there would be 6% of the amount of Windows virus' on Mac? Well, Mac has a minuscule amount.


That is complete rubbish. Creating viruses for Mac's is a waste of time for all crackers, not just for 93% of them.
Related topics
Windows Vista Official Thread
windows XP or 98?????
Windows vs. Mac OS
The Best Security?
Windows compatible Os help....
Virus threatens PCs running Linux or Windows OS
Merging Windows & Linux -> the most secure OS
Windows Vista - Virus Infection Spyware Trojan Adware?
ubuntu installation and windows
Bah, who needs Linux, Windows or OS X when you have...
Windows Or Mac OS x
most secure O.S
Microsoft Vista and something else...
BSD a better OS than Linux?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.