On CBS MoneyWatch: How to Haggle on Your Rent
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 9 of 44:
Next »
« Previous
Home users run IIS?
Also, don't spew the BS that "Windows is most used therefeore it's the easiest target". Last I checked Apache was the most widely used Web server and, guess what? IIS (Microsoft) has the most hacks....

Why are you so interested in changing the argument from "Is Windows (an OS) secure" to "Is IIS (a web server) secure"? Last I checked, IIS was an optional install and not built into the OS. You are using the same argument that Linux apologists use: "but BIND doesn't have to be installed so a weakness in BIND is not a weakness in Linux". Let me say it slowly, a weakness in IIS is not a weakness in Windows. Clear? If you brought it up solely to argue against the "most used" defense, read on.

I do somewhat agree that the "most used" argument is more difficult to defend until you add the type of user to the equation. Not only is Windows the most used desktop, it also has the largest percentage of computer naive users. Add to the fact that Windows has insecure defaults and you have a recipe for disaster. For those of us who spend 30 seconds during install to fix the defaults by taking away Administrator privileges from our daily user, Windows is as secure as Linux or OSX. None are extremely secure, but once you enable some sort of firewall, ALL are perfectly safe home systems. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only Windows specific security advice I could give is "don't use IE". Other than that, security practices are the same no matter what OS you use.

The fact is that I can put an OSX box facing the Internet and out of the box I don't need a firewall, Virus software, or Spyware software. That box will run for quite a while.

But why would you take the chance? You are advocating that OSX users shouldn't enable a firewall of any sort? Silly and irresponsible.

The fact that I can do the same with a Linux box is a testament to its secrity.

Not really. If an unpatched Linux is able to fend off 50% of automated attacks but there are very few automated attacks, is Linux really secure? It would be like having an acreage with no locks and saying "See how secure I am, no one ever breaks in!" You would be right... until the city grows and your house is now enveloped and you get broken into every second day. What is that saying that OSS proponents just love to chant? "Security through obscurity is not security." The unpatched Linux machine surving on the Internet does so through obscurity, not security. There are next to no automated attacks on the Internet hunting for Linux or OSX machines so the honeypot results are hardly surprising.

Put a patched Windows box on the 'net and you're cooked within 30 mins. Even with the latest patches.

Wow, I consider myself EXTREMELY fortunate then! My patched Windows box has been on the net for years (since W2K) and I haven't been hit once. Me thinks that your "cooked within 30 mins" is pure, unadulterated FUD!

And to those saying that Windows users have to worry and patch and buy 3rd party software, I say FUD to you too! I removed myself as Administrator, plugged into a NAT router (which I need anyway since I have several computers), and then I installed Firefox. Total time spent: 2 minutes... maybe. Since then, I log in and simply use my machine. I haven't had to spend a single second since installing my OS worrying about viruses, firewalls, or spyware. I also haven't had to spend a single dime on 3rd party software.
Posted by: NonZealot   Posted on: 02/02/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Sometimes all you have to read is the headline...  nucrash | 02/02/05
Took the words straight outta my mouth!  Jeff Spicoli | 02/02/05
HEY!! Who else has such extensive knowledge of  Laff | 02/02/05
They are going to show them to OSX or Linux?  ITGuy04 | 02/02/05
Nice FUD!  NonZealot | 02/02/05
Re: Nice FUD  Mack DaNife | 02/02/05
I agree  NonZealot | 02/02/05
No FUD, just FACTS.  ITGuy04 | 02/02/05
Home users run IIS?  NonZealot | 02/02/05
*cough* bulls--- *cough*  Chad_z | 02/02/05
Oops, someone has lousy reading comprehension!  NonZealot | 02/02/05
Good Advice - wrong conclusions  Roger Ramjet | 02/02/05
We'll agree to disagree  NonZealot | 02/02/05
Ah...but what are your computer using habits? And  Laff | 02/02/05
Good questions  NonZealot | 02/02/05
I think you missed one point I was trying to make.  Laff | 02/02/05
Laff: I think I understand now, thank you  NonZealot | 02/02/05
You are correct. However we probably both can agree  Laff | 02/02/05
It is to laff.......:)  Laff | 02/02/05
But the headline has very little relevance to the article  nucrash | 02/02/05
Security  TTGIT Guy | 02/02/05
Actually...  nucrash | 02/02/05
If they do they are keep quiet (NT)  voska | 02/02/05
Another head line reads...  Nullifidian | 02/02/05
Gee...  BitTwiddler | 02/02/05
To difficult and expensive...Much easier to trash talk  Laff | 02/02/05
It worked in the past  nucrash | 02/02/05
Well to be fair ...  Laff | 02/02/05
Who are you talking about?  NonZealot | 02/02/05
A matter of perspective  Mack DaNife | 02/02/05
In all fairness  DemonX | 02/02/05
Agreement factor, 99.999%  Mack DaNife | 02/02/05
The real problem is...  rapson | 02/02/05
rapson: Very nice point!  NonZealot | 02/02/05
Now be fair dude! MS has been doing the FUD thing  Laff | 02/02/05
And that makes it okay?  NonZealot | 02/02/05
Nope..just human nature.  Laff | 02/02/05
Actually...  Mack DaNife | 02/02/05
There are idiots on both sides for sure  NonZealot | 02/02/05
Non?Zealot  Mack DaNife | 02/02/05
Yeah Knife Man!  Jeff Spicoli | 02/02/05
Q: Has IE ever been sucessfully attacked on OSX?  Roger Ramjet | 02/02/05
Different programs  NonZealot | 02/02/05
Why don't they just fix their trash.  bjbrock | 02/02/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Meet Doc