"A better way of dealing with the unknown is to use whitelists--where only authorized or approved software can execute, said Stewart."
How about an even better way drop Windows all together and use an OS that is way less vulnerable, there are plenty of alternatives
Antivirus is 'completely wasted money': Cisco CSO
Summary
Companies are wasting money on security processes--such as applying patches and using antivirus software--which just don't work says Cisco's chief security officer.
Topics
Companies are wasting money on security processes--such as applying patches and using antivirus software--which just don't work, according to Cisco's chief security officer John Stewart.
Speaking at the AusCERT 2008 conference in the Gold Coast yesterday, Stewart said the malware industry is moving faster than the security industry, making it impossible for users to remain secure.
"If patching and antivirus is where I spend my money, and I'm still getting infected and I still have to clean up computers and I still need to reload them and still have to recover the user's data and I still have to reinstall it, the entire cost equation of that is a waste.
"It's completely wasted money," Stewart told delegates.He said infections have become so common that most companies have learned to live with them.
"There are too many companies in the world that actually believe infection is just a cost of doing business and are getting used to doing it--as opposed to stopping it completely. That's dangerous," he said.
A better way of dealing with the unknown is to use whitelists--where only authorized or approved software can execute, said Stewart."I'm sick of blacklisted stuff. I've got to go for whitelisted stuff--I know what that is because I put it there," he said. Security software vendors did not agree.
Gavin Struthers, regional director for McAfee Australia and New Zealand, said that although installing antivirus and updating patches are not a perfect solution, they certainly aren't a waste.
Just In
How about an even better way drop Windows all together and use an OS that is way less vulnerable, there are plenty of alternatives
I am not aware of any. Which ones were you thinking of?
I am not aware of any. Which ones were you thinking of?
As most people who are involved in computing know, using Linux or BSD which includes MAC OS is much safer than using windows. The cost of ownership of these is much lower due to the fact you or your IT department will spend much less time patching and reloading due to virus infections.
Yeah, or there are just really smart people out there ready to break into any system you throw at them. Security by obscurity is not gonna work if we were all to switch to something else. Not sure why Apple is releasing any security patches then, that just debunks your point right there.
a little bit about the OS differences.
Don't take this post as an attack, but as an invitation.
Some OSs (such as linux and BSD) are more secure from the ground up. They are architected to prevent attacks and to limit damage in case of an attack.
This is definitively not "security by obscurity". The source code is open and available. It is security by design. And security by practice.
XP is very difficult to lock down while making it still functional.
Linux is very easy to lock down keeping full functionality for the user.
Again. I invite you to try or at least read and investigate.
Don't take this post as an attack, but as an invitation.
Some OSs (such as linux and BSD) are more secure from the ground up. They are architected to prevent attacks and to limit damage in case of an attack.
This is definitively not "security by obscurity". The source code is open and available. It is security by design. And security by practice.
XP is very difficult to lock down while making it still functional.
Linux is very easy to lock down keeping full functionality for the user.
Again. I invite you to try or at least read and investigate.
Some OSs (such as linux and BSD) are more secure from the ground up. They are architected to prevent attacks and to limit damage in case of an attack.
Support this assertion. If you're going to use it be prepared to back it up. So far after begging for an explanation none has ever been provided.
Support this assertion. If you're going to use it be prepared to back it up. So far after begging for an explanation none has ever been provided.
Linux was designed from the ground up to support multiple users. For windows this was an after thought.
Linux was designed from the ground up to separate root (admin) privileges from normal user privileges. For windows this still doesn't work, Vista requires constant prompts that annoy the user although 3rd party developers are to blame for that too.
Linux was designed from the ground up to have a system of permissions to restrict file access. Permissions in windows was a later addition and they aren't applied very often, I can edit many system files in XP without any warning much less access restriction.
Linux was designed from the ground up to do networking. The internet is a network and in Windows networking was an afterthought, in the 3.1 days the internet was "just a fad" to MS. Cisco even uses Linux for networking despite getting paid off by MS to start using Windows.
Linux was designed with security as a priority, Windows has always been about fancy features before anything else. Windows owes much of its popularity due to having the features that average joe business user wants. Linux owes most of its success do to having the security and features that business such as Google, Cisco, and AOL, and researchers using multi-processor super computers need.
Linux was designed from the ground up to separate root (admin) privileges from normal user privileges. For windows this still doesn't work, Vista requires constant prompts that annoy the user although 3rd party developers are to blame for that too.
Linux was designed from the ground up to have a system of permissions to restrict file access. Permissions in windows was a later addition and they aren't applied very often, I can edit many system files in XP without any warning much less access restriction.
Linux was designed from the ground up to do networking. The internet is a network and in Windows networking was an afterthought, in the 3.1 days the internet was "just a fad" to MS. Cisco even uses Linux for networking despite getting paid off by MS to start using Windows.
Linux was designed with security as a priority, Windows has always been about fancy features before anything else. Windows owes much of its popularity due to having the features that average joe business user wants. Linux owes most of its success do to having the security and features that business such as Google, Cisco, and AOL, and researchers using multi-processor super computers need.
Linux was designed from the ground up to separate root (admin) privileges from normal user privileges. For windows this still doesn't work, Vista requires constant prompts that annoy the user although 3rd party developers are to blame for that too.
Windows NT, which is the foundation 2K, XP, and Vista are based on, has the exact same model.
Linux was designed from the ground up to have a system of permissions to restrict file access. Permissions in windows was a later addition and they aren't applied very often, I can edit many system files in XP without any warning much less access restriction.
Windows NT, which is the foundation 2K, XP, and Vista are based on, has the exact same model.
Linux was designed from the ground up to do networking. The internet is a network and in Windows networking was an afterthought, in the 3.1 days the internet was "just a fad" to MS. Cisco even uses Linux for networking despite getting paid off by MS to start using Windows.
Windows NT, which is the foundation 2K, XP, and Vista are based on, has the exact same model.
Linux was designed with security as a priority, Windows has always been about fancy features before anything else. Windows owes much of its popularity due to having the features that average joe business user wants. Linux owes most of its success do to having the security and features that business such as Google, Cisco, and AOL, and researchers using multi-processor super computers need.
I have to agree that up until the release of Vista Microsoft's focus was on ease of use and features. However that in no way changes the fact that the security model of Windows is the same as Linux (save for SE Linux type variants).
So what is the score: 0 for 4, you lose. I suggest you read up on the history of Windows. Specifically NT 3.1.
Windows NT, which is the foundation 2K, XP, and Vista are based on, has the exact same model.
Linux was designed from the ground up to have a system of permissions to restrict file access. Permissions in windows was a later addition and they aren't applied very often, I can edit many system files in XP without any warning much less access restriction.
Windows NT, which is the foundation 2K, XP, and Vista are based on, has the exact same model.
Linux was designed from the ground up to do networking. The internet is a network and in Windows networking was an afterthought, in the 3.1 days the internet was "just a fad" to MS. Cisco even uses Linux for networking despite getting paid off by MS to start using Windows.
Windows NT, which is the foundation 2K, XP, and Vista are based on, has the exact same model.
Linux was designed with security as a priority, Windows has always been about fancy features before anything else. Windows owes much of its popularity due to having the features that average joe business user wants. Linux owes most of its success do to having the security and features that business such as Google, Cisco, and AOL, and researchers using multi-processor super computers need.
I have to agree that up until the release of Vista Microsoft's focus was on ease of use and features. However that in no way changes the fact that the security model of Windows is the same as Linux (save for SE Linux type variants).
So what is the score: 0 for 4, you lose. I suggest you read up on the history of Windows. Specifically NT 3.1.
Readers of this forum by now know that you must have a direct link to Redmond. Perhaps you've invested in MSFT stock, or are a current employee. Whatever the case may be, you always ask the same asinine question, give me proof, and it has been provided yet you still cry out "give me proof". How many known viruses are out there that have been known to infect Windows computers? Can't count that high, right? Now, how many are out there that have knowingly (not proof of concept) infected Mac OS X? ZERO!!!! There's your proof Bill. Live with it.
...I've never been given an answer.
give me proof, and it has been provided yet you still cry out "give me proof".
It has? Where? Can you point me to it? Because I have yet to see it.
How many known viruses are out there that have been known to infect Windows computers? Can't count that high, right? Now, how many are out there that have knowingly (not proof of concept) infected Mac OS X? ZERO!!!!
Irrelevant.
There's your proof Bill. Live with it.
I wish.
give me proof, and it has been provided yet you still cry out "give me proof".
It has? Where? Can you point me to it? Because I have yet to see it.
How many known viruses are out there that have been known to infect Windows computers? Can't count that high, right? Now, how many are out there that have knowingly (not proof of concept) infected Mac OS X? ZERO!!!!
Irrelevant.
There's your proof Bill. Live with it.
I wish.
I'm guessing here but I think you might know that there are former Linux and BSD (and other OS) devs working on Windows and vice-versa?
C'mon now. It's more a people problem, than a product/technology problem.
C'mon now. It's more a people problem, than a product/technology problem.
... *nix and the OSes based on it are just the most awesomest ever! Everyone knows it! That's why BIND is the most subverted process of all time! Oh wait...
That's why BIND is the most subverted process of all time! Oh wait...
Two completely different things.
... to heed the maxim "'tis better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Only the ignorant believe those operating systems any safer than any other. You're living under a completely false and completely misplaced sense of security at you and your company's peril.
Only the ignorant believe those operating systems any safer than any other. You're living under a completely false and completely misplaced sense of security at you and your company's peril.
The cost of ownership of these is much lower due to the fact you or your IT department will spend much less time patching and reloading due to virus infections.
That is not true at all. You just have to know how to deal with it from the begining, not learn about it after it happens.
That is not true at all. You just have to know how to deal with it from the begining, not learn about it after it happens.
Can't get much more secure than that.
They take great care and pride in ensuring bugs are found and erradicated. But they're still there.
Linux meets the less vulnerable test simply based on the fact that it is targeted less. Whether it is due to having a more secure architecture (which Ye rejects stating that Win2K and up are based on the same security model as Linux), or because it has a smaller usage base.
Also, while Win2K and up may be based on the same security model as Linux, implementing it is often more difficult in Windows than Linux. As I posted later on, I have dental clients that run SoftDent which requires even the clients to have full Administrative rights and won't run if you set up a user in restricted mode. Too many vendors writing for Windows just assume Admin rights where fewer programs expect or require it under Linux.
So...Linux may not be considered inherently SAFER than Win2K and up by Windows apologists, but it probably could be considered LESS VULNERABLE based on user base, security model, and fewer programs requiring full access to the system.
Just my opinion...
Also, while Win2K and up may be based on the same security model as Linux, implementing it is often more difficult in Windows than Linux. As I posted later on, I have dental clients that run SoftDent which requires even the clients to have full Administrative rights and won't run if you set up a user in restricted mode. Too many vendors writing for Windows just assume Admin rights where fewer programs expect or require it under Linux.
So...Linux may not be considered inherently SAFER than Win2K and up by Windows apologists, but it probably could be considered LESS VULNERABLE based on user base, security model, and fewer programs requiring full access to the system.
Just my opinion...
...or not. They don't just magically occur because someone took an interest in the platform. They may be discovered because of the interest but that's not the same thing. Therefore to say it's less vulnerable is incorrect.
As I posted later on, I have dental clients that run SoftDent which requires even the clients to have full Administrative rights and won't run if you set up a user in restricted mode. Too many vendors writing for Windows just assume Admin rights where fewer programs expect or require it under Linux.
How is this a failure of Windows' security? Seems to me the problem is with the program not being correctly written to take advantage of LUP which have existed since NT 3.1
As I posted later on, I have dental clients that run SoftDent which requires even the clients to have full Administrative rights and won't run if you set up a user in restricted mode. Too many vendors writing for Windows just assume Admin rights where fewer programs expect or require it under Linux.
How is this a failure of Windows' security? Seems to me the problem is with the program not being correctly written to take advantage of LUP which have existed since NT 3.1
I agree that Linux and Macs aren't necessarily safer overall to Windows PCs. However, the areas in which they are more vulnerable differ from Windows. Windows is more vulnerable to attacks by Trojans (especially where permission is granted for the user to run outside programs).
However, the *nix machines tend to be more vulnerable to attacks from worms. This might provide some benefits (especially with a good firewall system that scans incoming communication before devices get infected). Still, areas of vulnerability still exist.
Also, as you noted, Windows is the number one target mainly because of its widescale use. (It certainly doesn't help that Microsoft's public image is low among hackers.) When the have such a large portion of the market, attacking them ends up giving the hackers more bang for the buck (so to speak). Why go after a company with 15% of the computers out there when you can write an exploit for about 80% of the market?
That being said, though, that Microsoft has another disadvantage. More legitimate programs are geared to run on Windows than other OSes. Because of this, the architecture tends to be more open to run the variety of programs needed for business and specialized purposes.
With the push for more web-based applications, this may change but the problem will not disappear. As other OSes try to make their way into the field dominated by MS, they will also need to accomodate the development of programs used in these businesses. (Note: By business, I'm not talking just the office. I'm talking about PCs on the factory floor or in the lab that has very unusual needs including connectivity to hardware that is not found in the home.)
In conclusion, I find that other OSes are more secure in some ways but still have holes that can be exploited. As they try to move away from the niche market, they will be stressed by the need to handle specialized tasks which will cause greater vulnerability. Also, as they grow, they will gain greater visibility as a target to be attacked.
In other words, every computer has it weak spots. All OSes stink because of that.
However, the *nix machines tend to be more vulnerable to attacks from worms. This might provide some benefits (especially with a good firewall system that scans incoming communication before devices get infected). Still, areas of vulnerability still exist.
Also, as you noted, Windows is the number one target mainly because of its widescale use. (It certainly doesn't help that Microsoft's public image is low among hackers.) When the have such a large portion of the market, attacking them ends up giving the hackers more bang for the buck (so to speak). Why go after a company with 15% of the computers out there when you can write an exploit for about 80% of the market?
That being said, though, that Microsoft has another disadvantage. More legitimate programs are geared to run on Windows than other OSes. Because of this, the architecture tends to be more open to run the variety of programs needed for business and specialized purposes.
With the push for more web-based applications, this may change but the problem will not disappear. As other OSes try to make their way into the field dominated by MS, they will also need to accomodate the development of programs used in these businesses. (Note: By business, I'm not talking just the office. I'm talking about PCs on the factory floor or in the lab that has very unusual needs including connectivity to hardware that is not found in the home.)
In conclusion, I find that other OSes are more secure in some ways but still have holes that can be exploited. As they try to move away from the niche market, they will be stressed by the need to handle specialized tasks which will cause greater vulnerability. Also, as they grow, they will gain greater visibility as a target to be attacked.
In other words, every computer has it weak spots. All OSes stink because of that.
my house is not broken into? Does it really
matter why Macs and Linux are safer in
PRACTICE, even if not in theory? If the locks on
my house are only slightly better, than those of
most of my neighbors, or if my dog sounds
only a little bit meaner, then the lazy, cowardly
burglars will pass by my house and rob the
neighbors. If Macs or Linux is only slightly
harder to hack than Windows, then the lazy
hackers will break into Windows systems. If
these hackers really were interested in work,
they'd get a real job, like the rest of us. Macs
make them work harder and there are fewer
Macs. Even if there were an equal number of
Macs and Windows "houses", the Macs have
better locks, or at least they are perceived by
the hackers (burglars) to have stronger locks.
matter why Macs and Linux are safer in
PRACTICE, even if not in theory? If the locks on
my house are only slightly better, than those of
most of my neighbors, or if my dog sounds
only a little bit meaner, then the lazy, cowardly
burglars will pass by my house and rob the
neighbors. If Macs or Linux is only slightly
harder to hack than Windows, then the lazy
hackers will break into Windows systems. If
these hackers really were interested in work,
they'd get a real job, like the rest of us. Macs
make them work harder and there are fewer
Macs. Even if there were an equal number of
Macs and Windows "houses", the Macs have
better locks, or at least they are perceived by
the hackers (burglars) to have stronger locks.
If you don't identify why something is a problem how do you expect it to correct it? That's been the problem with discussions about Windows' security. People have been pointing the finger solely at Microsoft when most of the problems lie elsewhere.
In this case the problem isn't with Microsoft "locks". It's with users allowing any person into their house despite the fact the locks are in place. No lock will protect you if you willingly allow everyone in.
In this case the problem isn't with Microsoft "locks". It's with users allowing any person into their house despite the fact the locks are in place. No lock will protect you if you willingly allow everyone in.
There are only operating systems that criminals and crackers haven't wasted their time looking for the holes in them because it is just not worth their time.
Let's face it also: most of the problem is the fool sitting in front of said computer, and EVEN IF THEY ARE RUNNING OSX OR LINUX...... that still makes them a danger if they know NOTHING about computers.
Let's face it also: most of the problem is the fool sitting in front of said computer, and EVEN IF THEY ARE RUNNING OSX OR LINUX...... that still makes them a danger if they know NOTHING about computers.
You Linux idiots are all alike. It AIN'T the operating system, Slim - it's the POPULARITY of the OS - otherwise it's not a target (like LINUX). Just wait till your toes are all curled up because some bozo spiked your Linux box with a nice little package - if Linux ever becomes mainstream enough to be a target. Or your Mac or your WHATEVER. I'm not an MS thumper - just hate to see you morons thumping MS just because of your "holier than thou" attitude about whatever puny OS you happen to be using. If your OS was worth a sh*t it would be popular and under attack. Smoke that.
... but let the fanboys crow, they have religion. And everyone knows technology religion is the safest path to take.
nt
I'm sorry, I must have missed in the story where the author mentioned anything about which OS.
I'm surprised that you would even bring up the OS controversy. Every OS has it's use. Linux has no use being in a corporate environment where MS Office is predominant. I might suggest that in the future, you curb your enthusiasm in becoming the first response to an article, and use the 24 hour rule in all of your communications.
I'm surprised that you would even bring up the OS controversy. Every OS has it's use. Linux has no use being in a corporate environment where MS Office is predominant. I might suggest that in the future, you curb your enthusiasm in becoming the first response to an article, and use the 24 hour rule in all of your communications.
Who would have guessed? But then again, smarter people then mrlinux have passed on that OS.
(how was that?)
(how was that?)
It's so typical of the zealot nerds that you can't see the benefit of what the guy says, and have to impart your own drivel instead. It's a really tough question isn't it... Would I prefer to apply patches that limit by whitelist etc OR completely convert to a product that isn't mass market. Hmm, let me think about it. It's a no brainer to me.
If I stretch the suggestion I can rationalise that Linux/Mac (not that you were thinking that, no, no) is effectively running a version of whitelist that you are effectively selecting as required. For me, if Windows could adopt some of that philosophy, I would be ecstatic. I guess you wouldn't be, mostly because MS would be 'stealing' something.
Me? I'm happy to work with the toolset that delivers what I want, when I want, and grows when I need more. Whitelist does sound like a positive step forward to me.
Long live XP!
If I stretch the suggestion I can rationalise that Linux/Mac (not that you were thinking that, no, no) is effectively running a version of whitelist that you are effectively selecting as required. For me, if Windows could adopt some of that philosophy, I would be ecstatic. I guess you wouldn't be, mostly because MS would be 'stealing' something.
Me? I'm happy to work with the toolset that delivers what I want, when I want, and grows when I need more. Whitelist does sound like a positive step forward to me.
Long live XP!
But honestly; from what I've read, freeware antiviruses such as Clam, and Avast do as good a job or better than overpriced commerical ones you have to subscribe too.
In the last 4 years I've been on Win2k, and every virus that got though my defense, was caught with Avast or Clam. I also have done montly full system checks for rootkits, and other malware and I'm pretty clean. If there's a rootkit, it's not be detected.
But I totally agree with whitelists.
- Kc
In the last 4 years I've been on Win2k, and every virus that got though my defense, was caught with Avast or Clam. I also have done montly full system checks for rootkits, and other malware and I'm pretty clean. If there's a rootkit, it's not be detected.
But I totally agree with whitelists.
- Kc
Stewart has a point with a whitelist, since it's probably the only thing that can (somewhat) get in the way of a user running something they shouldn't.
That being said, most AV programs are so bloated and intrusive that the cripple machines. Give me a lean AV program and a good hardware firewall, and I'm all set.
That being said, most AV programs are so bloated and intrusive that the cripple machines. Give me a lean AV program and a good hardware firewall, and I'm all set.
I manage the infrastructure for a medical practice. Nothing runs unless I put it on the computers. All users are "users", not administrators (XP). Since no one can install software without me doing it for them (yes it can be extra work) a whitelist makes perfect sense.
I have medical clients (dental), and one problem I run into is they use SoftDent and it will not allow you to run it unless the client is logged in with full Administrator rights. This puts every machine at risk since I can't set them up with restricted rights. SoftDent is aware of the issue, but doesn't care.
SoftDent is the proof of a major part of the problem in security. The total lack of interest in security by most software companies.
While Microsoft is a large part of the problem it is only a part of the problem. For companies like SoftDent to continue to write programs that are considered at the top of their class and still see them fail to address something as simple as user rights is just a crime.
As an accounting and business consultant I find this problem in many "high end" programs from accounting to wordprocessing and everything in between. It's time that the industry was brought to task for such shoddy coding and poor attention to basic security protocol.
User rights are one of the major causes of computer security breaches. This is the greatest single reason that Windows is such a large target for attack.
Frank Woodman Jr.
ProServices of Kansas
While Microsoft is a large part of the problem it is only a part of the problem. For companies like SoftDent to continue to write programs that are considered at the top of their class and still see them fail to address something as simple as user rights is just a crime.
As an accounting and business consultant I find this problem in many "high end" programs from accounting to wordprocessing and everything in between. It's time that the industry was brought to task for such shoddy coding and poor attention to basic security protocol.
User rights are one of the major causes of computer security breaches. This is the greatest single reason that Windows is such a large target for attack.
Frank Woodman Jr.
ProServices of Kansas
nt
TucsonGuy, there are DPMS solutions out there that have all the features, and do not require admin rights. We routinely set up systems where everyone is a "user", not admin. We also extensively use thin clients and RDP - a great way to eliminate most security risks. Email me at sales@brscomputing.com if you want to find out more. - Randy
While I don't think AV is a complete waste of time and money it isn't my primary security measure. I have many layers of security but the most important is the educating my users.
90% of the time (my own personal statistic) users are going to be the source of an AV out break. All those cute little chain letters that they just have to open and then launch terror on the network. I like Trend Micro's little lock down tool that allows me to shutdown the network connections of machines when they become infected until they are deemed network worthy again.
Above and beyond that it is all about good firewall policies, doing my best to stop infection (preventing executable and scripts from being sent/received on the email server, proper switch and router security configuration, and plain old education of the users. I'll even use the odd infection that makes it past all my security measures as a learning and teaching experience for myself and staff.
In summary, AV is part of a bigger solution that is top down with the top being my users and education.
90% of the time (my own personal statistic) users are going to be the source of an AV out break. All those cute little chain letters that they just have to open and then launch terror on the network. I like Trend Micro's little lock down tool that allows me to shutdown the network connections of machines when they become infected until they are deemed network worthy again.
Above and beyond that it is all about good firewall policies, doing my best to stop infection (preventing executable and scripts from being sent/received on the email server, proper switch and router security configuration, and plain old education of the users. I'll even use the odd infection that makes it past all my security measures as a learning and teaching experience for myself and staff.
In summary, AV is part of a bigger solution that is top down with the top being my users and education.
That was the case with me, until I found "Counterspy" by Sunbelt! Always right! Try it for 30 days.
I'd seperate the intranet from the extranet. Do people really need to email friends and family while they should be working? 2nd, I'd make sure they all used slims or that the boxes could have the cd doors locked so they couldn't put anything on the computer. After those 2 things, yeah, I'd white list.
Where I was working for a bank, I could d/l and install a lot of stuff. there were few web sites I couldn't view. there were a few web sites I actually needed (mostly gov run), but they were really really lax about their internet security.
So, I agree as far as AV isn't the first line, it's more like for mop-up.
Where I was working for a bank, I could d/l and install a lot of stuff. there were few web sites I couldn't view. there were a few web sites I actually needed (mostly gov run), but they were really really lax about their internet security.
So, I agree as far as AV isn't the first line, it's more like for mop-up.
The company I used to work for would give you a day off (without pay) if your PC got infected.
Set up virtual machines and when the inevitable happens just grab the canned services and start all over again but user education today is essential. Using just the Whitelist is a far easier way to go. I have had no viruses since I stopped downloading software at random from the web and now just download software from reputable places.
In the Ubuntu world the software there is fully secured and Windows software should be handled the same way. Having clean repositories to download from is a much better way to go.
In the Ubuntu world the software there is fully secured and Windows software should be handled the same way. Having clean repositories to download from is a much better way to go.
I visited a site for FF scripts, and low and behold the admin was warning users to be cautious and manually checking the scripts they d/l as someone had inserted some java code to hijack info in a number of scripts. Worse, they didn't even know how many were affected.
For individual users, the best defense is education.
For individual users, the best defense is education.
Do I really need to explain this one? Its pretty much a no-brainer.
you're thinking the beta stuff... the hottest/latest/greatest...
if you instead went with the secured/hammered out distros... you can get enterprise grade stuff that's rock stable.
so, enough with the FUD, already.
if you instead went with the secured/hammered out distros... you can get enterprise grade stuff that's rock stable.
so, enough with the FUD, already.
Anyone who has used, for example, the AS/400's built-in OS might debate you on IBM's view of "bugginess". They, too, constantly find issues with their OS and its related apps (DB2, RPG, etc.). Linux, particularly Red Hat (which IBM favors), doesn't stop that.
Besides, IBM also allows Windows Server on their mainframes which means that it must also be secure by your logic.
Besides, IBM also allows Windows Server on their mainframes which means that it must also be secure by your logic.
Why would I switch to a buggier less supported, system?
Good question, but you never did tell us why you made the switch. Was it because you drank the Redmond Cool-Aid and actually are convinced that application bugs (e.g. Apache, X windows, etc.) are the same as OS bugs? MS loves preying on ignorance.
Good question, but you never did tell us why you made the switch. Was it because you drank the Redmond Cool-Aid and actually are convinced that application bugs (e.g. Apache, X windows, etc.) are the same as OS bugs? MS loves preying on ignorance.
Good question, but you never did tell us why you made the switch. Was it because you drank the Redmond Cool-Aid and actually are convinced that application bugs (e.g. Apache, X windows, etc.) are the same as OS bugs? MS loves preying on ignorance.
Everybody is guilty at some point or other, not just MS. They typically get the spotlight because they have the lion's share of market plus most of their PR/marketing guys really are clueless (and assume we are too).
Put all that aside. RedHat, Apple, Oracle, SUN, CA, etc... all had critical security flaws in their software at some point or other. If you're gonna swing the bat, make sure everyone gets whacked (perhaps with uneven force).
Everybody is guilty at some point or other, not just MS. They typically get the spotlight because they have the lion's share of market plus most of their PR/marketing guys really are clueless (and assume we are too).
Put all that aside. RedHat, Apple, Oracle, SUN, CA, etc... all had critical security flaws in their software at some point or other. If you're gonna swing the bat, make sure everyone gets whacked (perhaps with uneven force).
is attached to the wrong object in your post
(Do I really need to explain that one?)
(Do I really need to explain that one?)
one good OS that everyone hated but easy to maintain is DOS....a virus can be detected right away...and you can monitor all your files by just comparng their sizes from the original.....no need of a good expensive AV
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
