Re: A worrying development
Mac OS-X has an order of magnitide worse security than Windows (See Secunia.org). So why hasnt it been targetted before then?
853 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Jul 2012
They might be 'old and obvious' now that microsoft bought out products using them, but patents last for 20+ years so it doesnt mean that that they are no longer protected....
Why would they disclose anything publically? Its a much stonger model to obtain revenue when you can hit a company with 200+ patents that they infringe and settle under an NDA, rather than have that list gradually whittled away by legacy UNIX OS distributions moving to avoid them.,..No one is going to fight 200+ patents as the cost woudl be immense and almost certainly at least one of them would be upheld making fighting a very expensive and ultimately future response.
Hence even refuseniks like Barnes and Nobel caved in in the end...
The reason that Microsoft dont want to tell which patents are a problem is because they are not like Apple and want to ban others from using their technology.
Microsoft want Linux to use it's technology becuase its a good future revenue stream.
Why would they want to disrupt that by letting the legacy UNIX OS vendors / distributions know which patents are a problem? - they would then avoid them where possible.
Its a good business strategy and makes commercial sense.
1.) Current Windows OSs have fewer and less severe vulnerabilities than Enterprise Linux distributions, and this has been the case every year since 2003
2.) That on average are fixed faster with fewer days at risk compared to Linux.
3.) The above still holds with a 'feature set' adjusted Linux distrubition to match the content of Windows
4.) 7 onwards is inherently more secure in pretty much every way than Linux. Older OSs it varies, but i did say current versions. things like secure boot chain, ASLR, NoExecute came first in Windows. Linux had to implement bolts ons like SEL to even come close to what is out of the box in Windows.
See http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2012/03/20/trustworthy-computing-learning-about-threats-over-10-years-part-5.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2008/10/27/download-h1-2008-desktop-vuln-report.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2008/05/15/q1-2008-client-os-vulnerability-scorecard.aspx
That there is Malware for Windows desktops is because people actually use Windows versus the ~1% Linux share in that space.
Where Liinux is used as a high market share - like webservers - it is hacked to shreds.
The facts stand in terms of security as measured by vulnerabilities, Linux sucks. All other things being equal it is much easier to hack Linux.
Linux in fact has the worst security of any commonly used OS, and is years behind Microsoft for instance.
The average distribution has ten times as many vulnerabilites than a Microsoft OS and twice as many as OS-X. See Secunia.org http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12192/
Linux having far higher vulnerability counts also holds true with a 'package adjusted' Linux that only provides the equivalent functionality of a Microsoft Server OS.
For an example of the impact of this in a market sector where Linux is actually used (so not desktops) - see http://www.zone-h.org/news/id/4737
You are many times more vulnerable running Linux, even allowing for market share.
And just to refute the other comment: "Again, research on humans has yielded similar outcomes:
IQ is generally predicted equally well by whole brain vol-ume, subcortical volume, and neocortical volume [An-dreason et al., 1993; Egan et al., 1994; Reiss et al., 1996; Flashman et al., 1997; MacLullich et al., 2002]."
"Recent research indicates that, in primates, whole brain size is a better measure of cognitive abilities than brain-to-body mass ratio. "
Overall Brain Size, and Not Encephalization Quotient, Best Predicts Cognitive Ability across Non-Human Primates. Brain Behav Evol 2007;70:115-124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159%2F000102973
That's is true, but I bet a fair percentage of those male 'fault' accidents are swerving to avoid women: pulling out without regard to other drivers; reversing without looking or being in control; parking across two parking spaces; hesitating or jamming on the brakes unexpectedly.....
Typically mens brains are 11%-12% bigger than womens brains. That's a well established scientific fact. Glad you find it funny....so do I!
I guess the missing bit is partly to do with driving ability (women have more car accidents per mile driven than men).
Yes, wait for WP8. Significant advantages for corporates is the key thing in a world of a dieing RIM. e.g. full device encryption and remote management. And also its secure like Blackberry as it is not built around a Swiss Cheese OS like Linux....
Likely the single platform across Xbox, Windows RT and Windows 8 won't do it any harm with consumers either...Oh and Pure View - nothing to compare with that once it comes out on WP.
Microsoft product cycles are 10-15 years. Much better than most Open Source products.
Open Source is the last thing the NHS needs, expensive to run and integrate, and clunky to use. They also have sensitive data, so putting the most insecure OS in the world ever in Linux in that environment is hardly a great move. For instance SUSE 10 is now on 3500+ vulnerabilites - see Secunia.org
You stick to your Linux Swiss Cheese and having to install loads more security patches than Windows, having to compile programs before you can run them, lol. and not being able to play decent games. And watch Linux devs try to keep its ancient monolithic kernel model up to date with the Windows one, forever playing catchup.
No one will miss you. You are <1% of the market and no one cares or ever will.
They both have a Full DVD worth of code.
Anyway, the same is true if you look at a 'cut down' version of Linux to match Windows features - far more vulnerabilities, with more critical ones, and a longer average fix time.
Ditto browsers - IE9 has a much better security record since launch than Firefox, Chrome or Safari.
The only reason Linux isnt hacked more than it already is is because of the 1% market share. As we have seen with Macs - that have only marginally better security than Linux - it takes at least a 5% market share before hackers even bother.
Where Linux is actually used - for instance web hosting - you are many time more likely to be hacked if you run Linux than Windows, even adjusting for market share: http://www.zone-h.org/news/id/4737
No it wont - You just turn off secure boot - or more than likely at least for Windows 7, Microsoft will release signed boot loaders.
You are forgetting about xBox too!
Consumers will come running to the better mouse trap, Microsoft wont have to push them. And likely secure boot will make the security gap between microsoft OSs and those with inherently much higher vulnerability counts like Linux and OS-X even bigger.
If you look at a market for instance where Linux is actually used like Web hosting, you are many times more likely to be hacked running Linux than Windows:
http://www.zone-h.org/news/id/4737
And this is primarily because Linux has an order of magnitude more vulnerabilities than Windows. See Secunia.org
No it doesn't - But Microsoft are not telling you anything about what you can or can't boot. They are making specific BIOS requirements only on hardware companies that want Windows certification, which is perfectly reasonable.
If you don't like the implications, then you have the choice not to buy anything that's WIndows certified.
Most people are happy to get a secure boot process and the extra malware protection it brings, and 99% of them don't care about Linux.
The only thing Joe Public will likely care about is that it will probably be MUCH harder to install a warez version of Windows.