The future of malware: Trojan horses

TalkBack 17 of 35:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Windows is hit because is WIndows is insecure - end of story

This tired, creaking old chesnut of "Well, if Linux was on 90% of desktops, there would be the same volume of virus traffic" is pure, un-adulterated Microsoft spin.

WIndows is hit because Windows is insecure, by design. Ever since the marketing decision to integrate Microsoft proprietary products directly into low-level, OS functionality, Windows was rendered permanently insecure. Sure, the move snuffed out Netscape, but at what cost? Well, no cost at all, to Microsoft. YOU, the user, pay any additional costs for the insecure-by-design WIndows OS. YOU have spent the last decade forking out extra cash for bolt on antivirus and anti-malware suits. YOU have suffered from the terabytes of WIndows malware generated data packets flying around the internet, and the performance overhead of all this traffic is the same whether or not individual users are protected from the actual payloads.

But lets look some more at this myth of user-base size creating exploits.

Consider Fort Knox. Secure, yes? Now, lets imagine we build 1000 Fort Knox's. The Microsoft FUD-ites would have you believe that because there are more Fort Knox's, somehow, magically, each one of those Fort Knox's somehow becomes less secure. SO, if we build 10,000 Fort Knox's, 1,000,000 Fort Knox's, the insecurity of Fort Knox is somehow, FUDtastically reduced?? WHat utter rubbish! Fort Knox is secure. Ten million Fort Knox's are just as secure. The number of instances of the secure system is IRRELEVANT.

The Unix OS (and its variants - Linux, Mac OS) - are inherently secure BY DESIGN. They were designed, 30 years ago, to be secure. They were designed, from the ground up, with security in mind. It is pure b*ll*x to suggest that more instances of an inherently secure system somehow renders that system more insecure. It is a favured argument from people who, for whatever reason, can not allow themselves to admit the truth - Windows is fundamentally insecure, and that is whay it gets hit, and why it will ALWAYS get hit, more often.

Now lets talk about 'bang for the buck'.

The entire mobile and fixed telephony systems for many European countries runs on UNIX systems. You want bang for the buck? Then bring down a countries telephone network. It doesn't happen, does it? And yet, if those systems were Windows .... qwell, now you know why they aren't. Now you know why not a single, truly critical computer system on the face of the planet, runs WIndows. Because Windows, is insecure. Unix is not. Sorry, MS fuddites, but there it is.

Posted by: whisperycat   Posted on: 10/16/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now