Which OS is the most secure?

[shadowpr]

Figured I put this thread under the General Software since it involved all 3 main OS's.

Read this link first to find out what was going on: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...ntest_returns/

And here is the results: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mac-O...ed-82079.shtml

I guess from a security stand point the Mac fan boys are going to be upset, and it seams Vista isn't really that bad.

[Dave21]

Interesting read. Now I don't feel all too bad having vista!

[shadowpr]

I actually like Vista, and I dual boot with Lionux Mint, so I feel really good about that.

Of course, no matter what seecurity your systems has, user error is still the biggest threat to it.

[gods_son_is_me]

Vista isn't the most Windows OS though. I think NT was. Or Windows 2000.

[Lespaul20]

Originally Posted by gods_son_is_me Vista isn't the most Windows OS though. I think NT was. Or Windows 2000.

How do you figure?

I don't know for sure, but I would make a guess that every OS the MS puts out is more secure than it's predecessor. Server OSs are inherently more secure than desktop OSs.

[kilgoretrout]

I would make a guess that every OS the MS puts out is more secure than it's predecessor

How do you figure that? MS marketing would certainly have you believe that. The most secure MS OS is always the next one according to MS's marketing department but they seem completely divorced from any technical realty that their engineers might impose on them.

As to the quoted contest, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I believe the successful attack was the exploitation of an sql injection vulnerability that, in all likelihood, would have been available in windows or even linux. The rules prohibited the entrants from using the same exploit more than once after successfully hacking one of the platforms. The results may simply reflect that this exploit was tried first on the Mac. I haven't thoroughly researched the issue and don't intend to but the devil is always in the details in these types of things.

[Lespaul20]

You seriously can't be that paranoid to think MS is out to get us by not making a new product more secure or at least as secure. There are companies that rely the security of the OS that do not have a vested interest in letting MS rule the world. I know there is marketing but I'm sure some one would exploit this if it was that big of a problem.

[bd1886]

Microsoft is fought every step of the way against over development in all areas of security,features,plug-ins,codecs and hell...I'd imagine packaging (for cryin' out loud). To say they stop short is realistic. To say they leave security holes intentionally is unrealistic though. (Too much at stake!) Where the "grey areas" are, is for vendors,courts and hackers to determine.

[Lespaul20]

Answer this:

In what way would MS benefit for purposely leaving security holes or grey areas in their product for which someone unaffiliated with them could exploit?

[kilgoretrout]

It would provide an incentive to upgrade at an additional cost to the customer and additional revenue to MS. MS routinely markets their latest OS as more secure than their previous ones for this very reason. It's an open admission that the new security features in the new OS will not be backported to the old OS. Now that can be all marketing hype totally divorced from any technical reality but it is definitely one way that MS markets their products.

Look, all operating systems have security vulnerabilities; it's a fact of life. They all can be run relatively securely when properly administered, that includes windows as well as OSX, Linux, BSDs, ect. And they can all be hacked by persons clever and determined enough to put forth the effort. Put a moron in charge of anyone of these OSes and you are likely to have problems, both security and otherwise. When you start talking about which OS is more secure, you are asking for an endless argument. There is no generally accepted objective metric for measuring the security of an OS; it's a matter of subjective judgment which requires the consideration of many factors. Exactly why is vista more secure than winxp? I guess you could point to certain new security features but that doesn't mean that vista is unhackable or even harder to hack than winxp.

[Lespaul20]

Originally Posted by kilgoretrout It would provide an incentive to upgrade at an additional cost to the customer and additional revenue to MS. MS routinely markets their latest OS as more secure than their previous ones for this very reason. It's an open admission that the new security features in the new OS will not be backported to the old OS. Now that can be all marketing hype totally divorced from any technical reality but it is definitely one way that MS markets their products.

Well considering MS doesn't charge for updates makes the revenue argument weak. To use revenue as an argument you have to take it to the companies that are buying MS products. Those firms, at least the larger one, probably take measures to make sure their software is as safe as it can be. Normal everyday users probably aren't as concerned with security as large firms so to say MS is try to screw it's customer is saying they are trying to screw the giant firms, including our own government, that give a lot of business to MS.

Look, all operating systems have security vulnerabilities; it's a fact of life. They all can be run relatively securely when properly administered, that includes windows as well as OSX, Linux, BSDs, ect. And they can all be hacked by persons clever and determined enough to put forth the effort. Put a moron in charge of anyone of these OSes and you are likely to have problems, both security and otherwise. When you start talking about which OS is more secure, you are asking for an endless argument. There is no generally accepted objective metric for measuring the security of an OS; it's a matter of subjective judgment which requires the consideration of many factors. Exactly why is vista more secure than winxp? I guess you could point to certain new security features but that doesn't mean that vista is unhackable or even harder to hack than winxp.

Agreed.

[David M]

I kind of enjoy the cat and mouse game between hackers and Microsoft. In a way, I hope it never ends. You have to admit its great entertainment every time a hacker breaks in.

Also, without hackers there would not be a multi-billion dollar security business. There is almost more security software out there than there is game software.

Its unfortunate for the users that some end up spending hundreds of dollars to keep these dirt bags out of their computers, but I guess that's just life when the lawmakers consider it a more serious crime to steal a candy bar from a 7-11 than to break in to someones computer...or to pound people with millions of spams.

[shadowpr]

Just to update this thread, I made it a poll, so please vote.

You can vote off of what you deem to be reality, or off of what you deem to be the perception. I just want your opinions.

[Force Flow]

Pretty much every OS has its weaknesses, and security by obscurity is not a security measure, as it seems to be with linux and OS X (although not so much anymore as they've been gaining ground lately)

In response to an earlier comment about MS being insecure (purposefully or not)...if that were the case, the US government agencies would not be running it on desktop machines.

[Detonate]

I run Linux almost exclusively, so this is not much of a problem on my machines, but I spend a lot of time, and make a few bucks cleaning up Windows machines, but I don't really see many viruses (or is the plural virii?) aymore. Most of the problems are spyware, and hijacks. And people who say "Last time I defragged? what's defrag?"

[glc]

Security has a LOT more to do with user habits, awareness, and training, not the core OS itself. If you surf porn and warez and click "yes" on everything that pops up, no OS is going to save your butt.