Microsoft Claims Vista Is More Secure Than Linux

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well now this should be for some good reading before bed I just caught this article and I have to say AHAHAHA. Microsoft gave it's 6 month report about how well vista did in the first 6 months of going on the market. So far Vista has had 4 patches to fix some high and medium end vulnerabilities that came out, although a few weeks ago I remember an article saying one guy found 10 exploits himself, but no patch has been made for it yet. Of course when they compared vista to Windows XP they mention that Windows XP had some bad exploit, which include IE browser exploits.

Of course the big shocker windows XP had 36 vulnerabilities in which 23 were High end vulnerabilities and the rest were either small or medium, but like Microsoft they pointed out that Vista had a better 6 months then XP did, but least we forget over the long run XP had some pretty nasty ones come out especially the ANI exploit that I posted back in may I believe. But now for the fun part and that is Microsoft hate for Open Source Operating system Linux and all it's open sourceness (thats not a word but still sounds cool); Although they compared Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 against vista the numbers don't lie, well maybe but Red Hat 4 had 129 bugs, 40 rated as High end vulnerabilities. After the first 6 months they had fixed 281 bugs in which 86 were High end vulnerabilities.

So as I am typing this I am talking to our resident Linux user truefusion and he was like OMG and other good choice words, but he will explain that in his post . But like I mentioned early after the first six months of XP, it was open season on the OS and so the question I will say is how bad Vista will be over the coming years, don't forget Windows XP has been running for almost 6 years now and so just give it time and some good stuff will be found.


Source

Here

Edited June 22, 2007 by Saint_Michael (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

So as I am typing this I am talking to our resident Linux user truefusion and he was like OMG and other good choice words, but he will explain that in his post

Although i don't use Redhat, i still vouch for Linux's security. You can't bring down all distributions out there by comparing it to one. Each make their own adjustments to the open-source programs and Linux kernel. However, what i find interesting is that they compared Vista with an already out-of-date version of Redhat Enterprise Linux: version 4. They should play fair by comparing it with the current version: version 5. But i would like to emphasize on what is mentioned in this topic on just how much faster the support for Linux is; that is, on how much faster the Linux-based companies are at fixing a problem. During a six month period, out of all the vulnerabilities that were needed to be fixed, Redhat managed to fix more than Microsoft, and there is no mention of Redhat missing any:

In addition, Microsoft fixed a total of 36 vulnerabilities in the first six months Windows XP was available. The NIST rated 23 of those vulnerabilities "high" severity. At the end of the six-month period, a total of three publicly disclosed vulnerabilities did not yet have a patch available from Microsoft, two of which (CVE-2002-0189 and CVE-2002-0694) were rated "high" severity and one which was rated "low."

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, the most downloaded GNU/Linux distribution, saw 129 publicly disclosed bugs during its first six months of availability. Forty of them were ranked "high" severity. Red Hat fixed a total of 281 vulnerabilities in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Workstation in the first six months, 86 of which were rated "high" severity.

But indeed, Microsoft should be given some credit on Vista's security compared to XP. They're doing better with Vista for however long it may be.

[el_mafu 0]

More secure... HA thats funny I've been running Linux for about 1 year and a half on my computer, guess how many anti-viruses or spyware removers I have, none, On a clean installed windows copy the first thing I would automatically have to find anti-virus, spyware removal and I firewall, If you call secure having to watch over your shoulder every 2 seconds then I'm sorry for you. It's a shame they are trying to claim this but the sad thing is most people will belive them as they have little knowledge of what Linux is, let them have their fun I'll stick to Linux, the smart thing to do.

Edited June 22, 2007 by el_mafu (see edit history)

[csp4.0 1]

yes, I agree with el mafu, linux is much more secure than Vista, even though i have vista installed, I still regret not installing ubuntu linux first. Anyhoo i have used linux, and if you're on a network you should install AV just in case

[nol 0]

More secure... HA thats funny I've been running Linux for about 1 year and a half on my computer, guess how many anti-viruses or spyware removers I have, none, On a clean installed windows copy the first thing I would automatically have to find anti-virus, spyware removal and I firewall, If you call secure having to watch over your shoulder every 2 seconds then I'm sorry for you. It's a shame they are trying to claim this but the sad thing is most people will belive them as they have little knowledge of what Linux is, let them have their fun I'll stick to Linux, the smart thing to do.

TBH I think you have no clue what your talking about. I have windows vista, and I love it. I have not had 1 virus, or anything (trust me, i download A LOT) Expecially from non-secure sites. I have not had ANY problems yet, so idk what your talking about, its just what you choose to think .

[OpaQue 15]

I guess, Windows will always rock for gamers and in-experienced users who experement a lot with their PC and yet expect it to run smoothly :-)For advanced users, Linux will excel without a doubt because of its vast options for configuration and customization.Its all about business for Microsoft.

[rvalkass 5]

There are two ways to look at this: Windows is the most popular OS, therefore the huge majority of viruses are written for it, so it isn't Microsoft's fault. Of course, the opposing argument is "Well, they shouldn't have the bugs there to be exploited by viruses in the first place!" Personally, I think Microsoft need to be quicker at fixing the bugs that are reported to them. As truefusion said, the Linux community and distribution managers fix bugs a lot quicker than Microsoft do.

 

You can safely run a Linux box with no firewall, no anti-virus or anything like that, and you will not receive a virus or any spyware on your PC. After about 20 minutes leaving an unprotected Vista box on, or about 10 minutes for XP, your PC will be virtually unusable! That even doesn't include using the PC in that time. If you were surfing around and downloading then you would have no chance at all. Only routers with in-built firewalls or those which don't have automatic port forwarding set up seem to be protecting most people - and why many claim Windows has become more secure. It hasn't - people just use more protection.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Interesting that you bring that up rvalkass, I do have more protection on my laptop then I have ever have on any system, of course some people are not gullible enough to click those funky emails and stuff a lot more. But what gets me though is that when I read articles talking about how these security research firms are visiting 400,500 tagged sites, they don't even list them on any site or add a website feature within the anti-virus program to prevent people from going to these plagued sites or at least let us know not to go them as well.Of course with that being said, I plan to have a whole bunch of software on a thumb drives so before I connect my new computer to the net, I have it better protected then I usually do. Of course if no one is aware of this Microsoft does there patches every Tuesday once a month, I caught this when I was reporting on the Ani exploit awhile back. Which tells me two things Microsoft while patch it's Operating systems in groups of exploits rather individually and two they make sure what ever patches they do come out don't lead into anything else.Yeah you oculd say I am somewhat defending Microsoft on that little part, but money says linux distro's do the same thing so they don't get caught by surprise with some major flaw in it's programming.

[el_mafu 0]

yes, I agree with el mafu, linux is much more secure than Vista, even though i have vista installed, I still regret not installing ubuntu linux first. Anyhoo i have used linux, and if you're on a network you should install AV just in case

you have your point but, you probably are an experienced user I can user windows as well and don't get any viruses because I know how to avoid them, but what if average joe gets a new PC?

 

average joe opens his browser and starts surfing, suddenly he/she sees this ad "FREE insert your favorite celebrity here SCREENSAVER!" average joe decides to download this awesome screensaver, results gets infected with 5 o r 6 spywares and he doesn't even know it (note that in linux you'll have to run it as super user(aka root) in windows just double click it)

 

next scenario

 

average joe opens an email account for his new PC, after a couple of days of clicking banners and filling out forms, he/she gets an email from Mr. lite jaxor, average joe "woah lite jaxor thinks I'll like these mouse cursors, I don't know who he is but I don't mind" average joe gets infected again.

 

and I can go on and on, but my point is you can't compare an experienced user, who's only avoiding what he knows it's bad for his system against a person with little or no knowledge at all.

[srujanlive 0]

I too picked up this article a few days ago on digg and I found it quite hilarious. But still with its built in anti spyware it is more secure than XP. But one thing that needs to be said is Windows is by far the largest used operating system and it attracts more hackers than any other OS. Maybe 99.9 % of them. Linux generally is used less and with a new version or different release of Linux every other day hackers usually cannot exploit it much. The same is the case with Mac OS X. Their Safari browser had so many loopholes ( it was a beta release though) , which were found immediately as it released the browser to Windows. Perhaps that is the reason why Apple is not willing to alter it packaged model. Because then, since there would be more users , there could be more chances of exploits into its loopholes , which would anyway be very hard considering its Unix heritage. Microsoft is therfore doing a pretty good job currently. I have had no virus attaks ever. And no spyware too. An average joe would do better learning how to protect his Windows prior to buying a PC. As far as I am concerned I am more than happy with my Windows XP.

[CrazyRob 0]

They should try comparing Vista to CentOS or Trustix or Ubuntu. In my eyes they are the most secure Linux operating systems around. I cannot believe Microsoft's XP has been running for nearly 6 years - it only seems like 3. Like Truefusion i am also a Linux user - well i have a fleet of Linux servers if that counts :)Linux communities are also quicker at fixing bugs as they have so many developers spread across the globe so it wouldn't be long before someone released a patch.As truefusion said Microsoft should be given some sympathy... which they should as its at least doing better than XP. Apparently the code base has been completely re-written so its harder to hack. These known exploits should be fixed in service packs like XP service pack 3... Yes there is one being built by Microsoft and is due to be released some tiem this year hopefully - so those who cannot afford vista will be safe in the knowledge that XP service pack 3 should fix most of the security vulnerabilities if not at least 5 If i dint rely so heavily on Vista for my computing i would be constantly using my Linux PC its so much more flexible. The only downside with using Linux is the Drivers. Microsoft's Vista supports over 1.9 Million hardware devices and wireless works i dont use wireless any more but i used to which meant that i couldn't get internet on Linux as there was no driver for the hardware.All in all i would say that Vista would be best suited to the normal people lol and Linux would be best suited to people who want a challenge unless you pick Ubuntu which is basically like a Vista version of Linux.

Edited June 25, 2007 by CrazyRob (see edit history)

[zak92 0]

Well to talk about XP its really bad trust me and vista should be nice but compared to the operational functions of Linux, vista is too kiddish.

[eviljoints 0]

vista for me has to be the worst operating system since dos its ful of bugs and has so much rubbish in it? one day microsoft will release a os that actualy works without 700 updates i think mac comps are amazing i dont own one yet but will do soon i hope

[dre 0]

Honestly, cmon guys. If you're a competent computer user, than viruses shouldn't give you a problem no matter what operating system you use. The three main sources of viruses (at least I think they are) are: porn, illegal downloads, and plain-old stupidity (ex. opening up an email titled "cool, check this out!" from an unknown sender).

one day microsoft will release a os that actualy works without 700 updates

Windows 98 SE and Windows XP have worked for me perfectly without any updates at all...zero, zilch, nada. Edited September 14, 2007 by dre (see edit history)

[Unknown_99 0]

Well I'm running Windows XP and I haven't done most of the stuff you listed there, but just as you said its common sense to not click among those annoying banners and emails and what not but sometimes you don't know your infected until you run a scanner, well thats what happened to me I believed I was Virus and Spyware free. The most common ways users get viruses and spyware recently is because they download cracked versions of a anti-virus software which probably doesn't update anymore as its a illegal copy.