Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Proven: Windows is more secure than Linux out of the box




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    <center>Proven: Windows is more secure than Linux out of the box</center>

    After years of petty squabbling between the most innovative company in the software industry and a few pesky upstart hippie developers over which of their operating systems is more secure, the verdict is finally in. Microsoft's flagship Windows software is more secure than Linux. You can demonstrate this for yourself just as we did.

    Most consumer Linux distributions come in both downloadable and boxed versions. Similarly, Windows may come either pre-installed or in a box. For purposes of comparison, we will consider only the boxed sets.

    Operating system boxes, whether Linux or Windows, typically contain one or more CDs, a manual, and licensing information. Linux CDs often come in a paper envelope and can be removed and directly inserted into a computer. Windows boxes, however, come with a certificate of authenticity that Linux distributions lack. You are meant to remove the certificate of authenticity from the box and carefully scrutinise it to ensure that it is legitimate. In other words, if the features of the certificate match the description of the features of the certificate, then the software in the box is most likely genuine.

    This extra security is invaluable in protecting Windows software from many of the evils that can plague a computer once it is set up.

    In contrast to the flimsy paper envelope holding the Linux CD, the Windows CD is typically in a plastic case that is secured shut with a label that warns you to be sure you are in compliance with the licensing terms found elsewhere in the box before opening it. This security seal is designed to prevent worms from getting into the CD case and infecting your Windows installation before it is installed, and is an invaluable security asset.

    Clearly Windows has the edge in physical security, but what happens after you slide each CD into the computer?

    Once the Linux distribution CD has finished installing, the computer requests that a superuser and regular user account be created by the person. This obvious lack of security involved in having more than one user on a computer that can be logged in simultaneously has driven Linux into relative obscurity.

    The Windows CD, at a similar point, demonstrates its superior security again. As the Windows installation process begins, it insists that a serial number be entered before continuing. Without this vital secret information, you can not continue installing. Most new Windows users are not aware that a Web search using the now-functional Linux box will turn up valid serial numbers, so this bit of security is the most powerful defence of all against unwanted back-doors in a Windows computer.

    Once installed, Windows can easily be set up to connect to the Internet and be used to browse the Web, check email, and run productivity software without any flaws, and unlike the insecure hacker operating system Linux, will quickly and without complaint run any software offered it from any Web site or email attachment as requested.

    We are forced to admit that, with the use of certificates, stickers, and serial numbers, Windows vastly outpaces Linux security out of the box.
    -NewsForge

    :wink:
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    I'm confused. :confused: Is this supposed to be a joke?
    If so: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
    If not: Flame to come.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    it's commonly referred to as satire and sarcasm :wink:
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    Just making sure. :D

    Edit: I must have missed the part about worms getting into the CD case. The rest of it could have been someone really, really, stupid.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The Isle of 31337's
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Proof that yet again microsoft is more secure :roll: :lol:

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Yea, naturally, the least secure OS will always be the most used OS. This is simply a result of being widespread. If Master Lock made 99% of locks, and Kryptonite brand locks were the other 1%, the criminals would spend their time finding methods capable of defeating master locks, because they are 99% more likely to come across them. It's the same reason there aren't many viruses for Macintosh. They are simply too few and far between to matter.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    caves of bedrock
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    you guys might be shocked to hear this but Windows Code is actually more secure than Linux. a german computer magazine did a comparison between the sourcecode of Kernel 2.6.3 with glibc 2.3.2, the Windows 2000 sourcecode that partially leaked into the internet, and OpenBSD. They scanned these three types of sourcecode for instructions that are potentially harmful as they could lead to buffer-overflows.
    here are the results that they found:
    Windows 2000
    Lines of code: 13'468'327
    Total Errors: 6298 (0.047%)

    Linux
    Lines of code: 6'261'477
    Total Errors: 6343 (0.101%)

    OpenBSD
    Lines of code: 2'025'726
    Total Errors: 47 (0.002%)
    this magazine used FlawFinder, a product that finds possible security weaknesses in code.
    http://www.dwheeler.com/flawfinder/
    now you guys might be thinking that if code of Windows is secure then why such a mess? actually the magazine itself says that the results are quantitative as the drivers have not been taken into consideration and also it has not been observed as to where the errors specifically exist. this doesn't allow them to deduce that what effect do they show after compiling.
    though everything is cool till now but there definitely is something out there that Linux community has to look out for.
    Latest Microsoft Security Updates.
    Last Updated:
    10th MARCH


    If you are a security freak: Use Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (NT/2000/XP/2003)
    ======================
    icq : 203189004
    jabber : asklepios20@jabber.org
    =======================
    Linux user since: April 24, 2003 312478
    yabaa dabaa doo...
    Customized for 1024x768

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    doesn't really seem fair to test a small percentage (that's all the leak was, very small) of the windows source against the entire linux kernel. I want to see the whole thing tested before i make any judgements
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    caves of bedrock
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    actually the magazine itself is not giving any judgements. it was just a quantitative analysis (note: not qualitative) but OpenBSD came top. so even if we compare *BSD with Linux then also there is something to chew on but yes i agree with you that there is not much to look into this test.
    Latest Microsoft Security Updates.
    Last Updated:
    10th MARCH


    If you are a security freak: Use Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (NT/2000/XP/2003)
    ======================
    icq : 203189004
    jabber : asklepios20@jabber.org
    =======================
    Linux user since: April 24, 2003 312478
    yabaa dabaa doo...
    Customized for 1024x768

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The Isle of 31337's
    Posts
    151

    Default

    ARghhhh!!! the 2 terms I would have missed if my life depended on it. Oh chemistry Why do you torture me!

    Only thing Linux user will have to look out for is the absolute Utopia that is Kde and Gnome Respectivley and the ease of use(granted you have the aptitude for learning something without carrying around 50 gallons of windex for all those Windows!) :rolleyes2

    Out of the Box is what I'm trying to say here, but I do agree that the reason why Windows is so well targeted, not the only reason though as we have seen, is that it is wide spread and mainly with people who don't know that much about computers to begin with, so Yes!, absolutely it will be more common than a Hard-core Linux/Unix( Omg I might be sued now for copyright infringement, Mommy! noooooooooo!) user who reads up on all the latest, encrypts his important files, uses Md5 checksum for downloads, etc..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •