Hell freezes over: Windows listed as most secure OS

It is widely known that Micro$oft is frequently dinged for having insecure products, with security holes and vulnerabilities. In a rare twist Symantec, no friend of Microsoft, said in its latest research report that when it comes to widely-used operating systems, Microsoft is doing better overall than its leading commercial competitors.

Code:

how did that happen?

 

it is only because Symantec doesnt like Apple/Mac, and Mac makes the only other commercial OS.
commercial OS's:
Mac vs Windows

Symantec DOESNT have a market in Mac but they do in Microsoft. duh, they are gonna try to get people to buy Windows products so they will also buy Symantec products. its a lose-lose situation. of coarse, in a Mac you dont have to buy security utilities.

 

oh, and those statistics only reflect what the recorders want to prove. they say things like "Redhat had 200 security fixes in X-days". when in truth none were actualy security problems. they were bugs and hypothetical security problems. on the other hand, Windows security patches were only applied when a problem already existed, such as an intrusion or trojan.

not all statistics reflect the truth and not all OS's were compared. i gaurentee that Linux and BSD both are, and will always be, much more secure than anything based on WinNT or DOS related.

 

I did some reading online I guess that this is a false truth the reason is that the criticall vulnerabilies in windows are greater also the opensource systems like linux have a transparent security policy which cannot be said for microsoft also mac OSX is verry secure....
security on a system is as good as the person who runs it....
hell really froze over
they cooked the facts (again)

 

Symantec loves microsoft. They wouldn't have a business without microsoft.

.

 

they must be talking about some extremely niche version of windows most of us have no idea even exists. that's the only way in which such a claim would make any kind of sense. and even then i'm inclined to be just a weee tiney bit sceptical.

i don't think there can be such a thing as a secure opperating system. do they mean one the average user can't mess with on their own machine. if so, why in the hell would we be supposed to want that? and more to the point, what kind of security is that anyway? and for whome?

there are os's that get hacked less then others simply because the're used less often then others, offer less support for fewer and less common applications.

or in the case of anything with as wide a market as microsoft products, those which are as yet simply too new to have been massively attacked.

i just don't see how anything that creates, intentionaly, back doors for marketing, can be construed as secure, in any sense that is useful to the average joe end user.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I take symantecs opinion with a grain of salt.

 

Just to be fair though Aderall it is a fact that most of what Microsoft releases as security patches are also to fix bugs which are theoretical security holes - no-one has usually actually entered a system through the hole - but it has been reported as a potential threat. Its not true to say MS only releases patches for actual threats intrusions rather than hypothetical threats - even some people in the LInux world would agree with that - but it is fair to say that most vulnerability is found in the Windows O/S -

I agree that windows is less secure but I think its fair to say that its not as insecure as most people assume since these days you gotta be pretty smart to find a vulnerability that isnt already patched and the smartest idea now would be to exploit vista machines - thats the reason why most businesses that use windows servers are using windows 2000 servers or windows 2003 and they probably wont switch until the latest server versions prove they are worth the threat

 

Windows 2000 was the only windows release that i liked at the time. when i finally learned other iX86-based OS's i switched though. i think i still have an XP partition sitting on a hard drive though.

security holes that have been exploited are usually from trojans. i didnt actually mean from a hacker executing commands remotely; or activating a second GUI software server. it is true that programmers dont waste their time on Linux though. more ppl have windows and it is harder for a programmer to write something that can penetrate other OS's.