Login:
Password:

Microsoft: Vista Most Secure OS Ever

By Nate Mook and Tim Conneally, BetaNews

June 15, 2006, 6:08 AM

Microsoft senior vice president Bob Muglia opened up TechEd 2006 in Boston Sunday evening by proclaiming that Windows Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry. But a bold statement can only go so far, and much of this week's conference has been spent reinforcing that point.

From the network perimeter to deep inside the Windows client, the significance of security has permeated into every facet of technology. Norman Mailer said that 20th century man's default status was anxiety. We have barely dipped our toes into the 21st, and our default status has already been elevated to outright fear.

Consumers are being plagued with spam, phishing attacks and spyware, while the corporate world fends off data and identity theft. Microsoft believes its new wave of software will be the panacea for such problems, thanks to the Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) and technologies such as BitLocker and smart cards.

Windows Vista is the first operating system from Microsoft to be built from the ground up using the SDL development model. Every bit of code is scrutinized for Common Criteria Certification and security compliance checkpoints must be met along the way.

Services are now run with reduced privileges that contain profiles specifying allowed file system, registry and network activities. Further below the surface, the Vista kernel makes it harder for rootkits to elude detection, while better protecting against unauthorized patches.

Spyware and malware threats, meanwhile, are contained by the operating system's built-in scanning engine that is based upon Windows Defender. In addition, the Vista firewall extends the functionality added in Windows XP Service Pack 2 to provide full directional filtering and application blocking.

Potentially malicious applications are also restricted with Vista's new User Account Control feature, which has spurred a great deal of complaints from beta testers. UAC forces programs to run in a specific Integrity Layer, with a default of medium, and request elevated privileges from the user when performing system commands or writing to sensitive directories.

Internet Explorer 7 in Vista runs in a low Integrity Level known as "Protected Mode" in order to prevent malicious Web sites from compromising an entire system. Features such as a phishing filter and security status bar add further safety checks for users.

UAC additionally enables file and registry virtualization for programs needing administrator access. This capability will ensure backwards compatibility without sacrificing the security of Windows Vista. For example, a program trying to write files to the root of the hard drive will actually be writing to a special folder called the virtual store.

On the hardware level, Microsoft has implemented BitLocker full disk encryption. Using a TPM chip located on the motherboard or USB stick, BitLocker literally encrypts data while it is being written to the disk. If a laptop were stolen, the hard drive would be inaccessible without a recovery key.

Microsoft says the 256-bit AES encryption technology only causes a single-digit slowdown when communicating with the disk, and the majority of users would never notice it was running.

Vista will also support smart cards with its user-based file and folder encryption technology known as EFS. Moreover, integrated rights management (RMS) enables organizations to enforce access policies for individual documents, which would prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.

But Microsoft acknowledges that nothing is infallible when it comes to computer security. In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team. This group has only one duty: to break the security in Windows Vista and help the company develop fixes for the vulnerabilities.

Microsoft is also looking outside to shore up its defenses. The Redmond company at TechEd 2006 announced the formation of the Microsoft Security Response Alliance. MSRA builds upon five other alliances currently helping to organize security efforts, and will offer a portal for collaboration along with a communication framework for sharing security response information.

All of these security changes won't be easy on application compatibility, but Microsoft says it is doing its best to mitigate any problems by the time Windows Vista ships early next year. The company is working closely with developers to add custom "shims" that will ensure their programs are compatible with User Account Control.

Still, Microsoft admits that antivirus software, games and some applications will continue to have problems. Work to streamline the experience for consumers will not stop with the final release, however, as Microsoft already has compatibility improvements planned through Windows Vista Service Pack 1.

Add a Comment (229 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By chrisup

edited Sep 26, 2007 - 11:11 AM

Secure? http://secunia.com/graph...riod=all&prod=13223

Score: 0

By layman34

edited Jun 27, 2007 - 2:55 PM

I have two computers, a little gateway 256 meg and a new Vista 3 gig dell, I have to keep using the gateway as Vista won't recognize my printer (A big Sharp printer-scanner-copier) and has destroyed my identites in E-mail. Better? I don't think so!!

Score: 0

By jason007

edited Feb 27, 2007 - 3:23 PM

There are no perfect OS in this word. Ya, I do believed that Vista provides better security, but guess what it still give you some security issues later. Still remember the case, win XP restarted automatically without asking you. god d*** it, you have to enter “shutdown –a” to about it. Ms finally realize it and come out with the service pack 2, but did it response immediately? Have you ever get blue screen on your pc?

Linux dun have such problems!
www.whylinuxisbetter.net

Some time I still depending on Ms simply because I am a hardcore gamer. Although some one developed wine-hp for Linux but still most games that are compatible with Ms cannot run under it. I knew they will improve it, I’ll wait till that time because I wanna get Ms out of my desktop ASAP.

Microsoft – for rich peoples…
Linux – for smart peoples…

Regards,
JS.

Score: 0

By john knobloch

edited Feb 17, 2007 - 12:07 PM

I am having a terrible time with Micro trying to get my Vista upgrade. I have COA 14numbers, sales receipt, model number and serial number. But they keep asking me for an ORDER CONFIRMATION NUMBER. I don't what they mean, nor do the anwser my direct question. Can you PLEASE help me. If you can not perhaps you can recommend another source. Thanks in advance. JOHN KNOBLOCH

Score: 0

By peconi

edited Feb 3, 2007 - 8:51 PM

It may very well be ;)

Peconi
www.VistaJuice.com

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 11:01 AM

Racing cars are also safer than road cars, because racing drivers know what they're doing. Yeah right..

Score: 0

By Mumoto

posted Jun 18, 2006 - 7:42 AM

CheshireDragon: so in other words I have to BECOME technical before I can use Linux, then I'd say gtfo Linux.

You have to read books to "operate" Linux, for Windows you don't, you just use and learn and learn.

Linux is not user-friendly if you want to install the simplest thing like a Media Player with codecs you have to know several commands and where to find it.

It's like they think the commands just pop up in your head or something.

I even had several cases of corrupted updates.

Score: 0

By CheshireDragon

posted Jun 17, 2006 - 7:38 PM

Linux can go corrupt but, the thing is, "If you use Linux then you know what you are doing." If it breaks then you can fix it and generally fast. Linux does require that you have technical knowledge and its not for everyone. It may not have the ease of use and application dominance as windows but it does run more secure, efficient and faster then Windows OSes.
Yeah, WinVista might be "safer"(then XP) now but, I am still going to stick with my Linux, SuSE, Gentoo, SlackWare anyone? :P Hell, I even have Fedora Core on an older machine of mine, A.K.A. "the hold you hand" Linux hehe

Score: 0

By paulm

edited Jun 19, 2006 - 8:38 PM

"If you use Linux then you know what you are doing." If it breaks then you can fix it and generally fast. Linux does require that you have technical knowledge and its not for everyone.

This is the reason Linux will remain far behind Windows and Mac. It is very hard to teach yourself how to use it without having a heavy lean towards geekdom. I consider myself PC savvy as far a installation and fault finding. But I gave up on Linux. I even had trouble finding clear and simple step by step instructions on how to install or update a programme. Until Linux has a point and click install process, it will NEVER threaten the likes of Windows.
I get the impression that Linux doesn't want to become "mainstream". Otherwise the O/Source community would have made it configurable by pretty much everyone, like Windows. AKA point and click install/uninstall and updates.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 20, 2006 - 12:13 PM

Amen to that. I am in the same position few years ago when Linux was the hottest topic on the IT world. I actually gave it a one week trail, and finally gave up. It's cannot go mainstream like Windows and Mac. It's too complicated. If I have it install on my gf's computer and tell her to use it (and tell her it's the future), she will give me a blank stare and break up with me on the spot.

I am always wondering who is that idiot that come up with Linux will replace Windows and even be a competitors to it. I bet MS was so grateful that someone come up with something like this because there was on the monoploy trail with DOJ. NOW they can say they do have competitors. And what is even worst, Sun Microsystem who make Solaris actually sponsor Linux, and guess what happened, Sun is losing money and market shares to Linux and Windows.

Score: 0

By bukue2

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 8:44 PM

Okay okay, I'm a linux user (Arch linux if you're that curious..) but I also have a windows xp pro desktop next to me.. With all the software compatibility issues that are bound to occur with Vista.. why would i scrap my perfectly decent winxp install, losing the ability to use certain software, and pay ANOTHER licensing fee just to use it? It's great that they're so concerned with security now, but considering how targeted MS products are, how secure can it actually stay? Recently I also really find myself asking if MS publishing these quotes and such is just to get more vista advertising. Well just my thoughts, no need to flame or even to pay attention.

Score: 0

By Mumoto

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 11:57 AM

whahaha Linux safer? wtf is safe, if you have 1 config or command line wrong you have to run over multiple files to find the error, same with installing stuff... if the installation goes wrong your Linux can go corrupt.

Ofcourse if you are a TOTALLY linux-tard you probably know what to do, but not everybody has 24/7 to escape into a virtual world.

You guys are like World of Warcraft players, no-lifers no seriously you are... get a life and think about TAKE IT EASY instead of do everything the hard way.

In Windows it's not that hard and since they're going to put less config stuff in the Register it becomes even easier to get rid of crap.

People are lazy and are always looking for ways to make something go faster, I think the MAJORITY of people would want to do 1 thing instead of 10+ to run a program or install something.

Score: 0

By Washu

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 6:50 PM

Most people who manually alter Linux config files and enter commands through the command-line generally know what they're doing and can fix problems that they cause. If they don't and they still want to tinker, that's like them messing with their car although they don't have any mechnical knowledge . . . they'll face the consequences.

Also, if an installation goes wrong (with either Windows or Linux), at that point most people just reinstall. I've had Windows installation run smoothly and after a couple of days, something breaks due to an mis-installation and I need to reinstall to fix it.

The MAJORITY of people who want to try/use Linux will either buy SuSE/Red Hat/Mepis/etc. or download Fedora/Ubuntu/OpenSuSE/etc. These distributions that focus on the desktop market provide by default, one program for each type of application (Evolution for mail/calendaring, Totem for multimedia, OpenOffice for office productivity, etc.)

Score: 0

By The-One

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 9:24 PM

Even though I prefer Linux, many people don't. I am VERY happy MS is taking security seriously. Most business with my (and Linux and Mac lovers) info run MS. Anything that helps them become more secure is a PLUS for all of us.

This is of course marketing bull, but I like the direction here and so should EVERYONE!

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 4:43 AM

Amen to that!

Score: 0

By blackstangnj

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 8:50 PM

You windows people are a joke, all of you are just lazy as all hell and really have no technical skills whatsoever, all you know how to do is reboot a computer/server (hey good job!). Furthermore, What an idiotic statement from microsoft (but hey did we expect anything less?). They certainly will be taking that statement back once its released I assure you that.

Score: 0

By FlAshdobe

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 10:40 AM

What? wtf? Wow I didn't know that you need to learn some technical skills before you can use the so called easiest trouble free Linux or Mac ;)

Score: 0

By Howell

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 10:01 AM

What a silly comment...
I hate extremists off all kind, including Windows and Linux extremists too : they are both wrong.

You arre the kind of person who says everything MS do is wrong and everything done under Linux is great... Both statements are wrong.

I do like both Linux and Windows but to do different things.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 4:59 AM

It's plain and it's simple....people use windows because it's a better product over all. Better is not necessarily, mind you------ better in 90% of cases = easier to use. It's the same reason that the ipod dominates the market. It's not BETTER than most other mp3 players, it's easier. People buy their ipod, get the newest itunes and buy songs/videos etc. They don't know, or maybe even care that there are other online stores out there renting songs for a set price a month, or even that these stores insure your music so if you lose it you can D/L it again. No. They care that they can buy a few songs and listen to it where and when they want to in a trendy little music player.
I use both windows and linux but I use windows way more, simply because I cant bother with dealing with command lines for things anymore. I'm at home and it's 2006, the command line sh&t needs to be over with already, and unfortunely linux just isn't done with it. Yeah there are many things you can do without command lines, but equally there are many things you can't do without em'. Adding lines to config files, etc. etc. etc. No....I want to be able to double click an exe file to have my program set up, and then I want to be able to run the program when I want to. I want to be able to pop a hardware card in and have it work sooner than later.
And Linux isn't safer, thats as much of a fallacy as the OSX not having viruses deal. See, hackers put alot of work into exploits, viruses, rootkits etc. Why the hell would you waste time on products that take up what, like 5 to 10 percent of the entire worldwide market? Second reason is that a high percentage of Linux users know what they're doing, which means that most exploits for a linux machine now will be debunked rather quickly.....so of 5% of the market you'll get a decimal number net' of people who may get something and have it running for a long time on their machine. With Windows it's easier - so many people who know little to nothing about computers are running windows that it just makes a 'prime' target. Again, this doesn't mean linux is safer. If you don't know what you're doing, you'll get viruses, malware, rootkits JUST the same. I consider myself someone who knows what he's doing, but I'm not willing to sacrifice ease of use for the so-called 'security' of being in a technological minority. My windows is as safe as a computer saavy linux users'.
So cut it out already. Keep a more open mind.

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 4:43 AM

You Linux people are filthy, lazy, unemployed wankers who can't have sex and don't now the difference between a user and a programmer.

Score: 0

By paulm

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 8:21 PM

Funny!

Score: 0

By morriscox

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 10:37 PM

I'm guessing that your post is a response to the idiotic post about all Windows users being lazy and incompetent. It still bothers me. In fact I posted a nasty response till I caught on. I figure that the vast majority of statements that have the word "all" in them are invalid. Betanews really needs an ignore feature.

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 10:58 AM

It was indeed.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 5:57 PM

Actually, they think being able to run a compiler on someone elses code, and alter a few lines here and there make them programmers. :p

Score: 0

By FlAshdobe

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 10:22 AM

LMAO :D Dude that's a good one !!

Score: 0

By duane534

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 6:59 PM

I suppose the best way to prevent malware infections is to not release it... Oh, wait. *cough* Metafile *cough*

Score: 0

By Mr Wizard

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 5:37 PM

MSRA? Microsoft should have started with MRSA (*) as a target acronym and worked backwards, given how prone Microsoft products are to being infected...

*: Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 4:41 PM

There are so many how linux/OSX is better and more secure than Windows. Just because they are not target, it doesn't mean they are not vulnerable. Linux and OSX has a combine market shares around 5%. There are reason why Windows about to capture over 90%+ of the market. The system is stable and user friendly. You can throw anything at it, and it will recognize, if it doesn't, you can easily google a driver for it. Can you claim that for Linux and OSX?

Score: 0

By Washu

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 5:28 PM

You know, that's not always the case. Case in point, 62% of websites use Apache and 30% use IIS (http://news.netcraft.com..._web_server_survey.html). Yet IIS has far more security problems than Apache.

I suspect that if other Microsoft servers were more popular (DNS, FTP, SMTP), they would exhibit similar number of problems as compared to their more popular counterparts.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft originally programmed Windows 95 as a desktop OS, not really designed for constant network connectivity. Because of that, there was no thought of controlling hardware access or a superuser; if you're sitting at the desktop, you are the superuser. This is the origin of a lot of Microsoft bugs . . . that and legacy support in latter OS's.

UNIX/Linux/BSD/Minix/etc. originally started off as a network OS. Back when they started, computers were too expensive to have personally so a university would buy one and allow its users to log in through a network. With that in mind, from the very beginning there was a superuser, privilege levels, etc. I'm sure the early UNIX's were hacked up quite a bit as well but according to the stories I've read, the hackers were more benevolent than today. Also keep in the mind that they've had 20+ years to clean and fix their problems.

So to summarize my long winded response, Microsoft has done a phenomenal job in gaining marketshare but their security problems are due to the quality and character of their OS and not solely dependent on their marketshare (not counting user stupidity exploits, of course).

Score: 0

By irwa82

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 10:35 PM

Actually I would say that windows has 90% market share because it has been distributed on every brand name computer sold for the last 20 odd years.

I purchased a laptop not long back and guess what I could not buy it without windows even though I don't use it. The Microsoft licence agreement said if I did not agree to the terms of the license agreement then to return it for a full refund but guess what the laptop had a license agreement that said the laptop and software where a bundled package and you could not return individual components only the complete package.

Now if people that don't use or want windows has to buy it on a new laptop then i'd say that people who don't know nothing are going to end up with it too wouldn't you say?

as for drivers in windows i helped a freind reinstall windows xp on a computer and guess what they lost their motherboard disk that had the sound drivers. I downloaded about 12 - 15 different drivers for the same chipset sound card before the sound card worked a couple even crashed the computer and every sound driver install required a reboot.

In linux just lspci and find out what sound chipset is being used then modprobe chipsetdriver and away you go no reboots no searching all good.

if the drivers are not included with windows and you loose the driver disk then windows is a nightmare linux not so.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 1:54 AM

the average user will never touch linux...it is still too complex and will not do all the tasks windows will do...linux will continue to have a niche market because as an everyday os it is not practical for the commmon user (games and easy to use interface and simple driver support)...no clue at all why you would need to download 12-15 drivers but you cant blame windows for that... blame the manufacturer because windows did not make the soundcard

Score: 0

By exti

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 3:52 AM

Bulls***. The average user use windows because they can pirate it. Not because Linux is hard.
Ubuntu, SuSE Linux and Fedora Core are all easier to install then Windows. I guarantee you that.

And for the driver support, no microsoft didn't do the soundcard, nor did the linux kernel developers. Still they bring you the driver straight up...

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 4:47 AM

And linux is free, what's your point?. Lets see...Pirated copy of program or free program that's supposedly 'godlike' compared to windows. Pfft.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 4:38 AM

Fedora Core is the most difficult Linux version to install because of the fact it uses a XEN kernel by default. I can't get NVIDIA's graphics card driver or the Madwifi Atheros Wi-Fi driver to work, both drivers compile just fine but when I try to load them with Mobprobe or Insmod I get an error message stating the module is in an invalid format. I also get a similar error message when I try to start the X graphical interface.

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 7:15 PM

I have NEVER had to load a driver for Mac or Linux. It just works.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 7:34 PM

That means nothing.

Well, other than the fact that you either have very generic hardware, or have not upgraded since 1984. :)

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 7:15 PM

I have NEVER had to load a driver for Mac or Linux. It just works.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 7:33 PM

That means nothing.

Well, other than the fact that you either have very generic hardware, or have not upgraded since 1984. :)

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 2:14 PM

Echo! Echo! J/k

I don't have any of that. I will admit I haven't upgraded since '02 abouts. I don't need to. It runs good, doesn't get viruses, doesn't crash, and is even a laptop! When I used to use Windows on it, the (MS-certified) driver blue-screened the computer multiple times. It has been fixed VERY recently, but '02 to '05 was too long of a wait.

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 7:02 PM

Linux and Mac is up around 10%, so there should be 10% viral infection, but there's not... Ignoring the fact that I've NEVER had to load a driver on a Mac or Linux. It just works. However, I've had to load a LOT of drivers in Windows, especially using a generic install disk. It's called quality and O/S level security. Linux asks to make changes. OS/X asks to make changes. Windows just bends over and begs for it.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 6:06 PM

Linux and Mac is up around 10%, so there should be 10% viral infection

It is not clear what you are saying there, let alone what kind of logic you are using.
Using a form of military/tactical logic, 10% share would indicate 1/81 the infections of the 90% share. However, even then, using the 10% figure is not quite correct. As you are assuming everything in the 10% is targetable by the same things. Separate that 10% out into its distinctly different distributions and then use those %'s.

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 2:17 PM

I should have been more clear. To the best of my knowledge, Mac usage is around 3% and *NIX is 3.5%. I know the distro game. It's NOT a fair way to compare, but still... Where are the viruses? Where are the crashes? I'll ignore classic Mac because it doesn't have the features I want, though.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 5:02 AM

Never? Wow. You're fortunate. Try buying some hardware for a change. I guarantee you'll have stuff to setup. I also have linux and I've had to get drivers for my video card and I've had to work about an hour to get my wireless card working right with some encryption on it. For that reason, Linux is just not a productive OS for me, and it will remain on the backbench until hardware and software come in mainstream for it.

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 2:19 PM

I do buy hardware. Generally, however, I convert old Windows boxes (long useless) to fully-functional Linux ones. And, I didn't say setup. I said load drivers. I suppose I did once for a new tower w/ NVIDIA. Wireless is easy w/ the right distro.

Score: 0

By avaix

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 9:24 PM

***Never*** had to load a driver in linux, eh? You must be running an HP with integrated video & a Celeron processor. Not slamming the open-source crowd here, but nitwits who make generic blanket statements about the "superiority" of any given platform tend to piss me off. We run Win32/Linux/BSD/Novell here and I can tell you that setting up a RAID5 array using a DPT SCSI controller in linux (Debian 3.1) is a flat-out pain in the nads!!

When you gain some experience outside of your parents' basement, Duane, you'll have no recourse but to adjust your attitude a bit to conform with the parameters of reality.

-mike

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 2:22 PM

LOL! Actually, one of them is an old HP Pavilion with all that. But, a Toshiba laptop, and a Sony VAIO, and a nicer tower next to it.

And, the personal comment was unnecessary. I have experience on all of the list. Not much Novell, I'll admit. I just got my A+ cert via Cisco Academy. I know it isn't a lot, but I'm not a nitwit.

Score: 0

By thejesusgod

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 3:36 PM

Security is great and all, but if it's so secure that I can't do what I want to do with it, Vista isn't worth anything to me! I'd rather stick with Linux (and hey, OS X is great, too) along with my own common sense.

Score: 0

By Asuka-chan

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 3:27 PM

Vista the most secure OS?
Yeah right!!! ha ha ha ha ha
After supporting WiNbLoWzE for the past 7 years I was placed in front of an OSX machine one day. 30 minutes later I was convinced that there really is such a thing as a secure OS and believe me it's not Windows.

Come on now peeplez, how many times are we going to let Microsoft pull the wool over our eyes?

Fool me once, shame on you.
Allow you to fool me 6 times? Just shoot me. :)

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 3:50 PM

*30 minutes later I was convinced that there really is such a thing as a secure OS*

Was that about the time it finished copying 3 small files across a network. I've played with OSX also, I found it slow for just about everything except loading itself, especially when trying to multitask...but it looks pretty and it is expensive...Oh yeah, and it has the most ridiculously hyperbolic commercials I've ever seen.

Score: 0

By discern

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 4:13 PM

You played with OS X once? You found it slow? What machine was it running on, a 1999 PowerMac G3 400 with 128MB of RAM? Listen, I run OS X on my PowerBook G3 400 wth 768 MB and I'll admit it isn't the quickest thing in the world, but on a modern mac, it's wicked fast. And that is with the kernel intentionally tuned for compatibility and stability rather than raw speed.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 4:35 PM

No I played with them quite a few times. I had to support our universities handful of Mac using faculty and staff along with the horde of windows using ones. Almost every Mac I used was dog slow compared to all but the slowest windows machines I encountered. I am not sure which model they were, they had grey acrylic case shells and some were blue in the front and some were gray in the front. If they were on a USB KVM switch, you had to wait until they had finished booting before switching away from them, otherwise the mouse and keyboard would never be recognized.

I haven't had any stability problems with WinXP and they were extremely rare with Win2K, and I am betting I can find more hardware compatible with XP than you can for OSX.

There was one or two fast macs...the ones built into their large white screens...but they still weren't nearly as fast as PCs half their price.

Score: 0

By TheTSAr

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 5:58 PM

Blue on the front was a Power Mac G3. Grey a G4. The blue is definitely not a comparable platform when running OS X, as it is OS 8/9 era. Early grey's also were OS 9 era. Not fair machines to compare to Windows at the time.

You made a comment about the Macs not recognizing USB devices if not switched to during boot. I can start any Mac today without either connected and attach them at any time.

I however, have never been able to find a way to do that with Windows. The DOS keyboard error either stops everything in its tracks or Windows refuses to recognize them after boot... no KVM switch involved!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 6:01 PM

He was comparing them to the windows workstations, of the *same* period.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 6:24 PM

Yep, most the PCs were older than the Macs. I actually saw a 66Mhz Win95 box at one point. To put a timeframe on this, I think OS 10.2 may have been released around then.

"DOS keyboard error" do you mean BIOS?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 4:29 PM

Heh..

We bought a Dual-CPU G5 about 8 months ago. It was slower than a Dell GX 270 until the latest update.

Score: 0

By crsouser

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 3:09 PM

They are claiming it will be the 'most secure OS in the industry'.

"Windows Vista is the first operating system from Microsoft to be built from the ground up using the SDL development model. Every bit of code is scrutinized for Common Criteria Certification and security compliance checkpoints must be met along the way."

I looked at the CC (www.commoncriteriaportal.org) website and Windows 2000 SP3 (EAL4+), Max OSX 10.3 Tiger (EAL3), and Windows 2003 server (EAL4+), and various forms of Redhat (EAL2 to 4+), Suse (EAL 2/3)and Solaris (4/4+). So this seems like a pretty bold claim; but there is of course the caviat of 'from Microsoft' above.

I found it Windows 2000 got CC certification but they never submitted any form of Windows XP certification, probably because it couldn't pass.

So I would be curious as to what Common Criteria Level Certification they are shooting for; if it is anything below EAL4+; who really cares. Just about every other OS out there (including OpenSource software) has gone through the Very expensive Common Criteria certification and most have obtained at least level 3 or 4.

I guess what would be great is if they were able to obtain 4+ or greater certification in their standard consumer/home desktop software.

Score: 0

By myusername987778978987979798798789

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 2:39 PM

AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

www.openbsd.com

I need to go change my pants now.

Score: 0

By systemsEng1

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 2:08 PM

Microsoft said the same thing about Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4, and Windows ME and Windows 98.... Making false statements like that before the product is released is a time honored tradition, marketing gimick that Microsoft uses to get people to go out and spend money on their buggy products. At least the free unixes (FreeBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, etc) fix their bugs before they become a problem -- Microsoft doesn't care about bugs in their software.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 2:43 PM

Being the most secure does not equal totally secure. Each of those systems may have been the most secure at the time, but finding security flaws later on doesn't mean Microsoft lied. At the same time being unexploited does not equal secure.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 2:25 PM

hmm... I used 2k for like 2 years before switch to XP, and they both secure. I haven't get hack or hijack. But if I am stupid enough to d/l some stupid s*** and turn my computer into a zombie, can I blame MS for my stupidity?

Like how rijp said, people are the problem, not software. No software is uncrackable or hacker proof, it has been proven many many times in the past. I hope you are not like that supid politian made a statement that want to ban MS from release vista unless it's a perfect system.

Score: 0

By 2048-AES

edited Oct 24, 2006 - 2:12 AM

Yeah man you're damn right.I'm using XP and 2003 Server since ages ,although I think XP can be a little prone to all the f#$^*!g script kiddies and the viruses at bay but I think if you could tweak around all the administrative tools in 2003 server you could wisely defend you box.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 12:14 AM

uh huh

rijp fanboys now

what's the world coming to?

Score: 0

By frostoftheblack

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 3:33 PM

Sorry buddy. People are not the problem when it comes to exploits. And exploits is what the real security issue is. There have been thousands of exploits discovered in Windows systems over the years that have allowed attackers to compromise a system. Exploits have nothing to do with users downloading spyware and malware or whatever. Compare that to OpenBSD: only one exploit discovered in the default install in more than 8 years...I don't know any other OS that can claim that.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 3:44 PM

Does the default install include a full featured browser capable of installing updates automatically?

Just because its only user only found one exploit in the default install doesn't mean that is the only exploit, just that the default install has at least one exploit.

Relatively speaking, how easy is it for a OpenBSD user to install a patch for that security hole?

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 7:57 PM

Yes, but Windows has 19835(random number) exploits in a default install. They include:

A) Everything, 'cause you're an admin.
B) Dozens of ports open to let other people connect to your computer.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 11:24 PM

A) Everything, 'cause you're an admin.
You mean I can tell my computer what to do?

B) Dozens of ports open to let other people connect to your computer.
How many can get to me behind my NAT?

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 9:50 PM

A) Try forming a sentence I can understand.

B) I don't know, but you wouldn't need your NAT with a Mac, OpenBSD, or a modified/hacked windows. A standard install of windows? Hell yes!

I've been running a modified Win2k box for about a year now to see if it can be hacked or picks up a virus. So far nothing has gotten in, because no ports are open by default. I even do stupid stuff like randomly install software or run executables people link me to, and it's still running fine with nothing malicious in it.

Ahh...that sweet sweet smell of 8 processes when you boot up in the morning.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 11:55 PM

A) Fixed. Sorry, I was in a hurry.

So, we've come to the conclusion that with some modifications from the default install Windows can be secure; and that with some modifications from the default install OpenBSD can be usable.

Score: 0

By Washu

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 5:53 PM

OpenBSD fixed that exploit over two years ago. If you have that exploit on your system, you're using an outdated and non-supported version of OpenBSD.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 6:09 PM

Um, what exploit, being useable?

Score: 0

By Washu

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 6:47 PM

I believe it was in the OpenSSH in OpenBSD version 3.3.

http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/5MP030A7PA.html

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jun 16, 2006 - 5:09 AM

LOL. Yes....So call it a tie. 20k exploits in a default windows install.....so, 20k fixes to make ur machine rock solid safe from probably every hacker out there. And with bsd 20k things to do to make the os marginally useable. But at least you know its safe against the 10 or so hackers trying to get in.

Score: 0

By Service Pack 13

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 3:08 PM

Well you couldn't be more wrong. Malware, et al., is a "Windows only" problem, as anyone who uses a Mac already knows. The fact is, you can pull a stock Mac out of the box, plug into the net, and, without any additional third-party security/anti-virus software, surf the net freely, download whatever you want, read every bit of spam sent to your email - and not get a single trojan/virus/worm/whathaveyou.

That inescapable fact alone should tell you that "people" are not the problem when it comes to OS security. Frankly, Muglia's statement that Vista is the most secure OS ever couldn't be more dumb and shows that MS hasn't learned a thing over the years. I'm sure MS has done a lot with this release of Windows, but what's been touted so far simply isn't enough. When it's eventually released into the wild, it will have the biggest bulls-eye in history painted on it. Cracking it isn't a question of if, it's a question of when. I'm betting it will be much sooner than MS thinks.

Score: 0

By ratmandu

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 6:56 PM

Now see, When MS goes out and says thatone of their products is the most secure, or is unhackable (Xbox 360), some people take it as a personal challenge to exploit the hell out of that product. Think back, before the 360 was released Heres a snippet.

"One of the reasons we went with custom hardware design for all our silicon is that it allows us to build security at the silicon level," he said. "There are going to be levels of security in this box that the hacker community has never seen before," but he admitted that "I'm sure sooner or later someone will work out how to circumvent security. But the way we have done the design doesn't mean that it will work on somebody else's machine." from:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050910-5296.html

Now, you look around, there is a modchip for the 360 about to be released, PLUS firmware modifications that let you play backup copies."But the way we have done the design doesn't mean that it will work on somebody else's machine." umm, ya, it does

Now, the same is gonna happen for vista, they are gonna tout it as unhackable, unexploitable, then 2 weeks after final release, 12 big security updates to fix holes and try to save their own asses. And ofcourse, i will end up getting it, and i will end up using those updates, because I like games, and dont have enough money to get a mac.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 3:14 PM

Malware, et al., is a "Windows only" problem, as anyone who uses a Mac already knows.

Do not mistake not being targeted as being secure.

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 7:06 PM

That's why Apache is always hacked... right? Oh, wait. It's not.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 7:30 PM

It hasn't? Best check your information again there, duane.

Score: 0

By mscamara

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 9:36 PM

actually, it has, double check your info, apache has been hacked left and right where as iis5 that comes with win 2k3 has only had 2 exploits since it came out

Score: 0

By duane534

posted Jun 19, 2006 - 2:27 PM

First of all, that should be LAmp, not just Apache. There's only so much you can do without OS level security.

Where do you get your numbers? I can't find anyone that isn't obviously biased.

Score: 0

By ¬_¬

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 4:58 PM

Yeah, sure.

Let me refresh your memory: MS stated that the next Windows whould get antivirus technology installed by default. That means bye-bye antivirus companies, who on earth is going to buy another antivirus? So it crash & burn against MS's one?

This has turn the antivirus companies -for quite some months now- into a race for finding a way to sell antivirus to linux/macos users. And, you know what? They have found like 3 or 4 exploits that could posibly, under certain circunstances, allow a virus to activate. And, guess what. They havent sold a single personal use antivirus for linux or mac, and we haven't suffered a single wave of virus atack. Not a single one.

Because this OS' are build from ground up thinking on security, not on "let the upgrades for the next version we will sell next year". Burn that into MS's developers' skulls, and maybe, MAYBE, we can start talking of a secure Windows by 2010 or 2020...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 5:09 PM

WTH?

MS is not bundling AV with Vista. I don't know where you are getting your info, but it's wrong. Such a thing would cause an endless number of lawsuits.

Score: 0

By Service Pack 13

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 4:55 PM

Regardless of who targets what, the fact (and reality) remains that the malware, et al., problem it is an inherent Windows software problem. Period.

And by the way, every report that has bothered to analyze and compare the level of OS security built into Windows and Mac OS X has reached the same conclusion, over and over again. Mac OS X is, by design, infinitely more secure by default - out of the box - than any Windows OS to date. That doesn't mean that OS X is invulnerable, it means that the bar is significantly raised for malware authors - potential or otherwise - to do any damage on the level that malware authors enjoy today on Windows with relative ease.

The problem with MS is that they left the security barn door wide open for far too many years. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing what they said they were going to do when Longhorn was announced (a complete rewrite of the OS from the ground up) they pursued a "patch as patch can" approach in the interim with a predictable lack of permanent meaningful results. Now that Vista (fka Longhorn) is about to arrive, it appears to be hardly the "complete rewrite" as advertised. The system registry, ActiveX controls, long the malware authors tools of the trade for infecting Windows PCs are coming along for the ride in Vista. No doubt MS has taken steps (finally) to offer greater protection of these long compromised Windows OS "features," but I'm afraid the malware authors of today will find the Vista of tomorrow all too familiar when the rubber meets the road.

Score: 0

By aka120%

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 7:16 PM

Regardless of who targets what, the fact (and reality) remains that the malware, et al., problem it is an inherent Windows software problem. Period.

I do not want to get into a debate here, nor do i want to speculate. I do just want to state the obvious.

OS Platform Statistics
As of April of 2006:
WinXP - 74.0%
Win2K - 11.2%
Win98 - 1.8%
W2003 - 1.9%
Linux - 3.3%
Mac - 3.6%
*Platforms that count for less than 0.5% are not listed.
source - http://www.w3schools.com...sers/browsers_stats.asp

Now, With all this being stated, I wonder why Windows operating system's are the inheriting platform of the vast majority of malware.

As PC_Tool stated...
Do not mistake not being targeted as being secure.

Score: 0

By Service Pack 13

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 8:53 PM

But you're missing the point. If any OS is designed to be more secure than competing OS systems out of the box, that fact doesn't change whether one person uses it, a hundred folks use it, or tens of thousands use it. The challenge of software design and security imposes a greater mandate than simply waiting to see if mass acceptance garners the attention of malware authors. By that time, it's already too late.

And do you have any idea how many millions of active users 3.6% translates into? And still not a thing malware-wise on the platform? The proportion of active Mac users and the virtual malware no-show just doesn't add up, considering the Mac's present installed base. The argument that Mac's are not targeted at all due to it's market share just doesn't wash. Even if it were just a million active users, that's a considerable malware propagation target.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 5:14 PM

inherint? Do you *know* what that word means? (much less, how to spell it..."inherent")

lmao...

Sorry, I thouhgt I was talking to someone with a modicum of intelligence. My bad.

involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit

They (malware) are not built into the OS, which is what the word would imply if you knew what it meant.

Idiots will always be idiots. When you make an OS that is useable by idiots, those who wish to write viruses will target them.

As for Vista, both of the items you mentioned, Registry, and AcitveX, are incorrect, at least, as you imply. The registry is inaccessible to the browser, and ActiveX, when run via IE, will be sandboxed, just as IE will be.

Has you done the research, instead of flaming, you'd probably know that.

Score: 0

By Service Pack 13

posted Jun 15, 2006 - 9:26 PM

PC_Tool, you're not going to carry the day with posts such as this, which is simply riddled with inaccuracies, ad hominem attacks, and arguments that are simply of your own invention.

Instead of just shooting from the hip, you might take the time to read the post you are responding to more carefully. If you did, you would have noticed that:

a) Inherent was not misspelled

b) The definition of inherent as "existing in something as a characteristic attribute." is appropriate in the context it was used since malware, et al., infection is limited solely to Windows platform vulnerabilities. Malware infection has become a "characteristic attribute" of Windows, whether Windows users remain in denial about that fact or not. Malware, of course, is not "built into" Windows, but the vulnerabilities and exploits that allow their existence are. Deal with it, as I'm sure you already are.

c) It appears you missed the following statement from my original post regarding the registry and ActiveX: "No doubt MS has taken steps (finally) to offer greater protection of these long compromised Windows OS "features" So, yes, I have "done my research," and yes, I stand by every foreboding word of my original post. You, on the other hand, may return to gulping down your kool-aid.

Score: 0

By aka120%

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 12:11 AM

Sorry mate, again, i dont want to debate, nor speculate, just state the obvious....

Threats to Mac OS X

* The Sony® Digital Rights Management (DRM) debacle affects Mac OS X, installing kernel extensions even if you decline to accept the license agreement. This software is both a rootkit and spyware.
* Worms and Trojan Horses targeting Mac OS X and have emerged, including:
o OSX.Inqtana.A, which propagates via Bluetooth®.
o OSX.Leap.A deletes, infects, or corrupts files and attempts to spread through iChat.
o SH.Renepo.A / SH.Renepo.B, aka Opener, is a rootkit that can disable the Mac OS X firewall, steal personal information, destroy data, and replicate itself to other systems on your network. That SH.Renepo can replicate itself to other systems on your network by copying itself to any mounted drive, including shared volumes, may explain why Symantec® characterizes this threat as a virus while the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) defines it as a Macintosh worm.
o MacOS.MW2004.Trojan, a nasty bit of malware that masquerades as a Microsoft® Word 2004 installer that erases the infected users Home folder and potentially more.
* While tricking you into installing a Worm or Trojan generally requires some social engineering, their malicious payloads can easily be packaged within apparently innocent application downloads.
* While viruses targeting the Microsoft Windows® operating system generally cannot affect your Mac:
o You can spread these by sending infected documents or e-mails to other users.
o Running Microsoft VirtualPC for Mac exposes your Mac to all Windows viruses.
o Macro viruses, such as those written for Microsoft Office products, can infect your Mac or destroy data. One should disable automatic macro execution in the preferences of your Office applications.
o Implementing Boot Camp and installing Microsoft Windows on your Intel®-based Mac exposes that computer to the same threats as running Windows on a PC.

The rise in Mac OS X exposures — including numerous Apple® Security Updates, several containing fixes for critical exposures, the highest level of threat — has prompted the SANS™ Institute to add Mac OS X to its list of "Top 20" Internet security vulnerabilities.

The rising popularity of the Mac and Mac OS X is considered by security professionals to make it an increasingly attractive target for malware and spyware. We agree with this assessment. Prior versions of the Mac OS were also subject to security threats: Section 7 of the "Viruses and the Mac FAQ" cited "around 40 Mac-specific viruses and related threats" before the advent of Mac OS X.


heres some more on this element of the topic pertaining to mac virus'/spyware/adware, etc..
http://news.com.com/Appl...100-7355_3-5228038.html

Widget Vulnerability - Tiger - Mac OS X Vulnerability.
Published: Monday 31st 2004

With Apple's latest release of Mac OS X Tiger (10.4) along came the first security issue that effected the Apple portion of the operating system directly. The security issue revolved around the ability to automatically install Widgets when a user accessed a website that contained the code. Example code was created by stephan that showed how he discovered this issue and how it could be exploited for future malicious uses by exampling benign code.

Initially it was reported that once a Widget was installed via the automatic installer the item could not be removed, this was later corrected with instructions. To remove a widget the user needs to navigate to their library folder for the widgets and drag the item to the trash.

Shortly after the news hit the Internet, Apple released Mac OS X 10.4.1 that corrected this issue along with other issues. Now when you access a website that has the Widget installer code on it the web-browser asks if you want to download it.


source- http://www.macvirus.org/

My point in posting all this is, not to say I believe Microsoft is "Vista Most Secure OS Ever", far from it!

My actual point is if someone takes their time and knows what they are doing, and unfortunately do have malicious intensions, any OS is vulnerable if this person decided to dedicate themselves to explointing the particular OS...
Thanks, aka out -

P.S. you made and excellent point here...
"If any OS is designed to be more secure than competing OS systems out of the box, that fact doesn't change whether one person uses it, a hundred folks use it, or tens of thousands use it.
The challenge of software design and security imposes a greater mandate than simply waiting to see if mass acceptance garners the attention of malware authors. By that time, it's already too late."

Score: 0

By Washu

edited Jun 16, 2006 - 6:29 PM

All this shows is that the Mac has flaws (no surprise there). In order to have any significance, there should be a comparison between the number of Mac viruses and Windows viruses (using a common criteria, time frame, definition, etc.); if what you're implying is true, that the number of viruses is directly proportional to the user install base, then for every Mac virus, there should be about 24.7 Windows viruses (according to your statistics Windows has 88.9% marketshare, Mac has 3.6% marketshare, 88.9/3.6=24.7).

I personally don't want to do the work of trolling through Security Focus or Nessus to run the numbers but just from the list below, you list about 7-8 Mac vulnerabilities. That should mean there would be around 198 vulnerabilities for Windows. I suspect that there are far more Windows vulnerabilities than that.

Even if you didn't count half of the viruses and there were actually 20 Mac viruses/vulnerabilities, that means there should be 494 Windows viruses/vulnerabilities. Again, I think Windows has more than 494 vulnerabilities.

Score: 0