[LINK] Re: Windows XP versus Vista

[Kim Holburn]

On 2008/Jan/25, at 2:55 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> On 1/25/08, Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
>> Windows doesn't have more viruses, more exploits, more malware  
>> because
>> it is the most common operating system. it has those things  
>> because it
>> is crappily written, insecure software and because microsoft don't  
>> give
>> a damn about security and never has.
>
> And you can sight references for that of course?  Or is it just an  
> opinion?

Sophos make Anti-virus for Windows, Macs and linux.  Unlike most of  
the other AV companies they actually understand Macs and linux and  
can really compare.   Unlike most of the other AV companies they  
don't make all their money on the insecurity of windows (just  
most ;-).  In general they have said that Macs are safer.
Here's a quote from one of their press releases:

"No-one should panic, and while this is an indication that hackers  
are showing an increased interest in targeting the Mac OS X platform  
it is still a lot safer place to be than Windows."

Release is here:
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/11/macarena.html


The problem with the market share idea is highlighted when you look  
at web servers.  The largest share of webserver OSs has for some time  
been linux. Linux webservers have never had viruses and have in  
general been considerably less prone to attacks.  That is changing,  
but in general linux is not subject to automated attacks like windows  
is.  Linux and Macs are still subject to network attacks but so is  
windows.

It is not the case that linux and macs are "secure".  It is the case  
that linux and macs are less insecure than windows.

Clue-level of users is very important.  But shouldn't a good OS  
protect the user?  How is the user to know obscure details of OS  
kernel programming or system security?  How can they judge network  
security issues?  How can they possibly understand a complex question  
when shown a dialog box with a very limited amount of information and  
asked to decide?  They can't and it shouldn't happen.  Most of the  
current crop of OSs are really not very good at all at security.

> Given that opinions seem to be the order of the day I'll throw mine  
> in the
> ring...
>
> The two biggest reasons why more viruses, malware, etc, exist for  
> Windows
> more than for other platforms, IMHO, are (in no particular order) :
>
> 1) Market share.  A virus which can infect "one-in-a-million" Linux
> workstations is not going to get very far.  A virus which can infect
> "one-in-a-million" Windows PCs has a far bigger target audience.   
> If you
> were writing a virus - ignoring all other factors - which would you  
> write it
> for?  Virus/Malware/etc today is almost entirely about money - and  
> money
> comes from quantity.
>
> 2) Clue level of users.  If you take the "IT clue level" (for some
> definition of that term) for the average (or even better - median)  
> Windows
> user, and compared it to the "IT clue level" for the average/median  
> Linux or
> Mac user, which do you think will be higher?  If the median Linux  
> user gets
> a flash-initiated pop-up saying their computer is infected with  
> Malware and
> to click here to remove it - do you think they would do it?  How  
> about the
> median Windows user?
>
> I'm not saying there aren't clueful Windows users out there, nor  
> clueless
> Linux/Mac users, but for the moment at least the Linux/Mac camps  
> are much
> more top-heavy than the Windows camp.
>
>   Scott.
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294  M: +39 3494957443
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961