Comments on: So is Vista really more secure than Mac and Linux? http://cybernetnews.com/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/ Technology News Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:53:50 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: CoryC http://cybernetnews.com/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-99386 CoryC Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:33:19 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/06/22/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/#comment-99386 If you take nothing else from this posting please remember these words of wisdom: No OS is secure. If you take nothing else from this posting please remember these words of wisdom: No OS is secure.

]]> By: Ryan http://cybernetnews.com/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-99277 Ryan Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:44:04 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/06/22/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/#comment-99277 Yeah, and that's something that these charts don't represent...the marketshare. That obviously has a huge impact on how widespread the vulnerabilities become, and right now hackers are going to target the less-knowledgeable users that run XP. Yeah, and that’s something that these charts don’t represent…the marketshare. That obviously has a huge impact on how widespread the vulnerabilities become, and right now hackers are going to target the less-knowledgeable users that run XP.

]]> By: Pieter http://cybernetnews.com/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-99238 Pieter Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:48:36 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/06/22/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/#comment-99238 Yeah, Ubuntu may have more unpatched vulnerabilities, but since it's not very popular amongst people who don't spend hours messing around with technology, it's still safer than Windows XP. Simply because hackers choose more popular targets. Yeah, Ubuntu may have more unpatched vulnerabilities, but since it’s not very popular amongst people who don’t spend hours messing around with technology, it’s still safer than Windows XP. Simply because hackers choose more popular targets.

]]> By: Ryan http://cybernetnews.com/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-99222 Ryan Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:14:47 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/06/22/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/#comment-99222 <div id="commentquote"><a href="#comment-99204">CoryC wrote:</a><blockquote>What I think what is most important here is that Linux is touted as a very secure OS but as you can see Red Hat Enterprise had 214 vulnerabilities and 62 were high severity. OUCH! Lets say that out loud; TWO-HUNDRED-FOURTEEN vulnerabilities! That's huge. Does anyone know that last time Microsoft had 214 vulnerabilities for a production application? I know that there have been Services Packs that have fixed over 500 bugs although they were not security related.</blockquote></div> I was wondering about that as well, but then it also makes you wonder how fast some of these were fixed. I mean out of those 62 that were high severity for Red Hat, how long did it take for them to fix those? @DosFreak: :lol: CoryC wrote:
What I think what is most important here is that Linux is touted as a very secure OS but as you can see Red Hat Enterprise had 214 vulnerabilities and 62 were high severity. OUCH! Lets say that out loud; TWO-HUNDRED-FOURTEEN vulnerabilities! That’s huge.

Does anyone know that last time Microsoft had 214 vulnerabilities for a production application? I know that there have been Services Packs that have fixed over 500 bugs although they were not security related.

I was wondering about that as well, but then it also makes you wonder how fast some of these were fixed. I mean out of those 62 that were high severity for Red Hat, how long did it take for them to fix those?

@DosFreak: :lol:

]]> By: DosFreak http://cybernetnews.com/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-99209 DosFreak Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:49:16 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/06/22/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/#comment-99209 1. Create your own proprietary OS. 2. Only allow your own employees or people with NDA's/Contracts to the source code. 3. Have Microsoft funded people perform security testing of their own OS. 4. Don't pay attention to your own testers and mark vulnerabilities as fixed or NA. 5. Don't bother to put unresearched vulnerabilities int your reports. 6. FUD. 7. Profit. 1. Create your own proprietary OS.
2. Only allow your own employees or people with NDA’s/Contracts to the source code.
3. Have Microsoft funded people perform security testing of their own OS.
4. Don’t pay attention to your own testers and mark vulnerabilities as fixed or NA.
5. Don’t bother to put unresearched vulnerabilities int your reports.
6. FUD.
7. Profit.

]]> By: CoryC http://cybernetnews.com/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/comment-page-1/#comment-99204 CoryC Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:18:25 +0000 http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/06/22/so-is-vista-really-more-secure-than-mac-and-linux/#comment-99204 What I think what is most important here is that Linux is touted as a very secure OS but as you can see Red Hat Enterprise had 214 vulnerabilities and 62 were high severity. OUCH! Lets say that out loud; TWO-HUNDRED-FOURTEEN vulnerabilities! That's huge. Does anyone know that last time Microsoft had 214 vulnerabilities for a production application? I know that there have been Services Packs that have fixed over 500 bugs although they were not security related. What I think what is most important here is that Linux is touted as a very secure OS but as you can see Red Hat Enterprise had 214 vulnerabilities and 62 were high severity. OUCH! Lets say that out loud; TWO-HUNDRED-FOURTEEN vulnerabilities! That’s huge.

Does anyone know that last time Microsoft had 214 vulnerabilities for a production application? I know that there have been Services Packs that have fixed over 500 bugs although they were not security related.

]]>