Despite all the interim releases of Windows Vista, Symantec has come out and said in a report that Windows Vista is very likely to be less secure when it ships than Windows XP is today. According to Symantec, it already has discovered many security flaws within Vista that have to do with networking. Symantec says that it's Vista's large chunk of new code that is the problem.
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (8)
You'll notice there are very few companies that specialize in Linux security. Or Mac security, for that matter, due to Mac OS X's UNIX heritage.
...ok?
When last you did a Google search on Linux and Mac security?
- 1 vote
At your urging, I just did one now. Some interesting results. For starters, a search for 'linux security' yields 467 million results. This is vs. 890 million for 'windows security' and 367 million for 'mac security'. (apple security and macintosh security yielded far fewer results)
The point I wish to make here is just how much attention there is on Linux security. Linux holds about 2% of the desktop market, yet has half as many articles as the 85-90% desktop market share software- and more than the 7%ish desktop market share software.
A lot of this, no doubt, comes from *nix's history as server software. Which is another good point: *nix's security is just plain good. User permissions have been around forever. With Linux/Unix, you don't need an add-on suite like Norton to keep your computer safe- all you need is a tiny amount of common sense. Truth is, when I used windows, I never used AV software and never got a virus, cause I used common sense (and didn't use Microsoft Office- opening compromised .doc or .xls attachments with Office can and will get you compromised as well). But if you compare what damage your average Joe can do surfing on Windows or nix, it's clear that nix's modularized nature is an incredible asset... my firefox can only modify my firefox files, and that's how it should be.
Vista's security will be weak because Windows is a monolithic operating system. All the other stuff you throw at it- bad management, not enough focus, bad decisions- just doesn't compare with that one huge, major flaw. A monolithic OS can in theory be better than a modularized one at any given point in time, however, over time, a modularized one will fare much better, because a monlithic one is far harder to maintain, update, and secure, and can be compromised from an ever increasing number of angles. A compartmentalized OS doesn't have that problem- pieces of it can be worked on when they need to be worked on, rather than redoing(or at least rechecking) the whole OS for every minor change.
In the words of Macdailynews, I couldn't be less surprised. Isn't it just about time Windows users took responsibility and stopped financing this giant miscreant?
- 1 vote
I trust Symantec's opinion just as much as I believe they can make bloat-free software..
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



