Is your computer secure?

[damunzy]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
<iframe src="file:///C|/" height=130 width=580 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 scrolling=no frameborder=0 vspace=2></iframe>
Very very complicated
lol. Its a joke, its not even a security vulnurability.
Mozilla does not show the drive because iframes do not work in mozilla, I think

Hence the option:
This is just a function of IE and did not pass any info to anyone

 

[ainwood]

Anyone ever used on of those online virus scanners? They do exactly the same thing - although in this case you THINK that your PC is being scanned for 'good' purposes.

 

[IceBlaZe]

OK, I will take a deep breath and explain to everyone why windows is JUST as secure as linux, when you treat it the same:

Lets put it this way:
A W2K box with decent hardware and proficient management is just as stable and linux.. and just as safe...

now you may all bash me with code red and IIS5 and all:
well, a win2k box alone is crap... honestly
but if you are a good w2k admin who also installs 3rd party security software, get the patches as soon as they are out, and put attention to security in windows just as much as in linux then you should not have more problems than in a *nix server...

The fact is a patch that prevents what happened in code red was released 5 months before code red existed... only the administrators who didnt get it and didnt care as they should for the management of their w2k server got punished... (without talking about the heavy load on the internet code red caused... for windows AND linux servers...).

A not-so-well runned windows box is a lot more often than a linux one for one simple reason: Windows is simple to install and simple to 'Secure' (not so correct - but thats my point), while a linux box is as stable and as secure as the person managing it. so you will get into more oftenly a not-well secured windows box or a not well managed windows box....
windows crashings and attacks are blown out of all proportion when possible... just like with Windows 98 (the drivers made it unstable, but all the blame went to microsoft, not that im saying win98 is excellent, it just got much more blame than it should have), just like with the 'MAJOR PNP BUG' that was advertised everywhere and mentioned by the FBI - that actually was a much less of a threat then maken of (and i will not get into it why... just read one deep, detailing and objective article about when that security hole can hurt you and you will be surprised).
Also - microsoft worries much more to the security of their clients than linux does - I promise you that if all windows costumers would move now to linux they would see so many people hacking into their computers like never before - for one simple reason - linux is as safe as the person behind the box with it.
so because of all those reasons windows computers are more 'hackable' and more 'unstable', but if you run into a good win2k system admin who gets the patches intime (before the release of a worm exploiting them), that monitors the box at need and also uses some 3rd party security software - you should run into just as much problems as in linux...
only in win2k of course... other windows os's are not talked about here (except for some examples).
so stop bashing windows, ok?

Not to talk about the fact that if you USE a cotumized firewall in windows like you do in linux, your computer will be as secure as that firewall, JUST like in linux. WINDOWS IS A COMFORTABLE AND EASY TO MANAGE SYSTEM, hence, you see more windows boxes not secured. Usually its because when someone already takes linux he knows he needs to know how to secure it well, and he knows he needs to learn linux. Windows is so easy to use and so full of default options, its much more common. 92% of all home computing used OS's are windows.
Now, if you take a costumized windows firewall, or a good not costumized windows firewall, and do the same with linux, and you still manage to hack windows more easily, then tell me.

 

[Padma]

OMG! I'm defending both Microsoft AND IceBlaZe in the same post! (OK, I have to bash MS a little, at least.)

if you are a good w2k admin who also installs 3rd party security software, get the patches as soon as they are out, and put attention to security in windows just as much as in linux then you should not have more problems than in a *nix server...

This is true. Win2K CAN be as secure as *nix.

The problem comes in those little phrases: 'good w2k admin', 'installs ... security software', 'get the patches', 'pay attention to security'.

MS has for years sold its systems on the premise that they are so simple to install and use. They have put all their effort into a glossy surface, and not enough into the underlying system. Sure, now they are saying they will put security first, but I'll believe that when I see it.

In any case, finding those good, competent admins is not easy. I cannot count how many MSCE-papered admins I have met who can point-and-click with the best of them, but who can't really figure out how to fix anything if it's not already in a drop-down-menu or dialog box.

But, yes, Win2K CAN be secure.

As for Linux:

... linux is as safe as the person behind the box with it.

Also very much true.

But then most Linux distros turn ON the safety and security features by default, so even if you don't want to be 'Super-Admin', your out-of-the-box release is already more secure than Windows. Not as secure as a good admin could make it perhaps, but still good. (I assume anyone *geek* enough to roll-your-own linux is smart enough to be able to do a good job administering his/her system.)

Finally:

92% of all home computing used OS's are windows.

(I didn't bother to verify the figure. It matches reasonably with all studies I've seen.)These people aren't using Windows because it's easy to use. They're using it because of monopolistic practices by Microsoft. But that's for another thread.

If you were an 'evil hacker', what would you attack? The 8% that probably have at least some level of security, or the 92% of the market, with a good chance that NO security precautions have been taken? Face it. You get more 'bang-for-the-buck' by attacking Windows. It's easy, and it's effective.

 

[IceBlaZe]

You clear all my points

But I do think that windows is successful not only because of bill gates evil geniousity in the business market...
Linux HARDEST attempts to make a user-friendly OS went down the drain IMO.
I used redhat linux, and when I looked at it as the simple costumer, it was annoying as hell.
But when I got used to linux (slackware 8 this time) its cute. Still, using win2k, I havent found a reason for me to use linux yet. Win2k only crashed 2 times for me, one time was trying to play some bashy old DOS game, and one time hard drive error.

Win2k works very fast and stable for me, and I consider myself as a heavy user. I use 3d rendering programs, drawing programs, 3d drawing programs, programming and such's...
Must tell you:
Amd 1.33Ghz
384MB Ram
5400RPM HD
works very stable and fast enough for me.

And even the most friendly linux installs are not as easy as windows to install... redhat was quite a breeze, but not as XP, 2k or 98.