The weakest security link? You

TalkBack 22 of 44:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

But then tell me why

"Users of Apple OS, Unix and Linux OS's don't have to worry about clicking on anything, and that's how it should be. This drive to make the user see themselves as stupid everytime another Microsoft drop off spreads another Windows specific virus, is typical ploy of a cash rich monopoly who have no intention of putting right THEIR problems."

Let's do a little exercise: Go and look at the list of vulnerabilities (fixed or not) that exist for Windows, Linux, OSX. You will notice that you could take some of those say they are "equal" in the level of effort a hacker would need to take advantage of it. Now look at how many of those vulnerabilities have actually been exploited, i.e., how many of those have viruses/worm/Trojans.

You will find that just about every vulnerability on non-Windows OSes have no viruses, while the Windows counterpart could have multiple viruses/worms for the same hole. Most Windows viruses have been written long after the hole has been patched, often months or years after a patch is already available.

Also, when you look into detail of exactly how hard it was for the hacker to exploit the hole, you realize just how tenacious these virus writers are. Every time there's been a hole discovered on Mac, the Mac followers downplays the importance of the hole, saying it's very hard to exploit so it doesn't "count". Well go and look through how many hoops the hackers jump to exploit a hole on Windows.

It's very subjective to say "Windows is less secure", but doing an exercise like above could provide some numbers to the tired old argument that the reason there's not many viruses for the other platform is just because it's more secure. Let's get a virus-per-hole number to see what's really going on here.

To prove my point even further, I remember when a Windows vulnerability was discovered a week ago or so, what struck me was not that the security companies said that a virus MIGHT be written to take advantage of it, but they actually gave an estimate of WHEN the first virus would show up (it was like 5 to 7 days later).

I'm not saying Windows is more secure, I'm saying it's getting a HECK of a lot more attention from online vandals than any other OS. Every little flaw is exploited into the ground over and over, even well after it's been patched. No other OS is scrutinized so much. Basically no hacker cares about an OS that has 2% market share. Why would they put in the effort and risk of being caught for a 2% "return" over a 95% "return"?

My point is that all the zealots from the other platforms should stop patting themselves on the back. The only reason you don't have many viruses/worms/Trojans is simply because that's not where the money is. Servers don't count much since most viruses take advantage of unsuspecting users to spread. And servers are usually much more firewalled and locked down than your typical home desktop, irregardless of what OS it runs. The analogy would be to think my house is "secure" just because the bank two blocks away has been broken into twice in the last year but my house has never been broken into. Let's move the contents of the bank into your house and see how secure it really is, ok?

Just some food for thought...
Peter

Posted by: Qbt   Posted on: 07/22/04 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

• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now